Allahabad Court May 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Ram Sri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All121
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of U. P. against thejudgment and decree of the learned CivilJudge, Etawah, dismissing the suit. The suitwas filed initially by the State of U. P. and the Gaoa Sabha, Mauza Vedpura (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) on 6-1-1959 for the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the plots situated in Mauza Vedpura, Pargana and district Etawah, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere in the owership and possession of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs, in the alternative, also claimed that if they were not found in possession over the plots in dispute, including the trees standing thereon, they might be given possession over the same excluding buildings. The suit was filed with regard to the following plots mentioned in the Chart given below. The said Chart would indicate the area of these plots separately as well as their character, ...
Fateh Grand Bhuremal Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC398(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The dealer is a firm which carries on business at Hapur, District Meerut. During the assessment year 1956-57, the dealer collected gur from various parties in the State of Uttar Pradesh and consigned the same to destinations outside Uttar Pradesh. The railway receipts were made in the name of self. These railway receipts were subsequently sold to local parties. The dealer claimed exemption from tax in respect of the turnover of such transactions amounting to Rs. 1,13,524, on the ground that such sales were exempt from tax under Article 286 of the Constitution. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this contention. The contention, however, was accepted on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. According to him, the gur purchased by the dealer had been consigned to places outside U. P. and the railway receipts were sold to local dealers by endor...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jiwan Lal Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR474(All)
Mehrotra, J. 1. In this reference the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1) as they stood prior to the amendment by the Finance Act of 1968 should be applied in the present case ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereof will not apply to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 even though the returns of income had been filed, after April 1, 1964 ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right is holding that no penalty could be imposed with reference to the cash deposits on the principle of Anwar Ali's case : [1970]76ITR696(SC) even after the amendment of Section 271 in 1964 ?4. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the ease, the Tri...
Firm Ramdeo Onkarmal and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1777
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The applicants are being prosecuted under Sections 20(e), 21(a) and 21(c) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the prosecution case, the applicants entered into two transactions of purchase of Tur (Arhar) and one transaction of sale during the period between January, 1967 and March, 1967 and these transactions were forward contract transactions which were prohibited by virtue of notifications Nos. 1384-B, 1384-C and 1384-D all dated 17th July, 1958, issued by the Central Government prohibiting forward contract transactions in regard to Tur and there-by they committed the offences referred to above. After the evidence of the prosecution was over the applicants submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the case had been pending that the prosecution was uncalled for inasmuch as the three notifications were ultra vires. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded a finding that prima facie there appea...
Ram Bahal Pandey Vs. Ram Nand Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ290
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. learned Counsel for the parties have made a request that the writ petition itself may be disposed of today,2. The Writ Petition has been filed against an order or rather a notice issued by the Station Officer, P.S. Munderwa to the petitioner informing him that he had illegally taken possession of the property in dispute even though it was in the tenancy of Smt, Sampatta and directing the petitioner to leave the property immediately, failing which he would be prosecuted for an offence under Section 447 I.P.C. it is this notice which has been challenged by the petitioner.3. Under Section 241, I.P.C. a trespass does not become criminal trespass unless the trespasser is given a notice calling upon him to withdraw from the property. The notice has to be in writing and has to be given by the person who has been dispossessed. The notice contemplated by Section 441 cannot be given by a police officer with whom a report may be lodged about the trespass. The notice given b...
D.S. Awasthi and ors. Vs. Virendra Swaroop
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All26
ORDERAmitav Banerji, J.1. Reasons for the findings on Issues No. 1 (a) and (b):On the 12th May. 1975, after I had heard the counsel for the parties, I had recorded the following findings on issues Nos. 1 (a), 1 (b).'I, therefore, answer issues Nos. 1 (a) and (b) in the nagative and against the petitioners.'2. I had also indicated that the reasons would be given later- I now proceed to give the reasons for the above findings.3. The two issues Nos. 1 Cal and (b) are as follows:--1 (a) Whether the respondent No. 1 was disqualified from being chosen as a Member of the legislative Council of the State since he was at the time of the filing of his nomination holding the office of the Chairman of the Legislative Council, U. P.? (b) Whether the respondent No. 1 was holding an office of profit under the State Government and was precluded from being elected a Member of the Legislative Council of the State in view of the provisions of Article 191 of the Constitution of India Those two issues requ...
Kashinath Seth and anr. Vs. the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All35
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Section 71 read with Sections 73. 74, and 75 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 being violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. As the two petitions involve common questions of facts and law they are being disposed of by one common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 6429 of 1971, petitioner No. 1 is a Partnership firm, It carries on the business in gold, ornaments and articles of gold under the name and style of M/s. L. Kashi Nath Seth, at Lucknow. The petitioner firm is a licensed dealer under the Gold (Control) Act 1968. It is authorised to acquire ownership, possession, custody and control of gold, ornaments and articles of gold in accordance with the provisions of the Gold (Control Act.3. On 27th April 1971, at about 11.00 A. M., the Superintendent of theCentral Excise Department, Lucknow and other officials along with other persons of the staff raided the...
State of U.P. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1230
H.N. Seth, J.1. State of U. P. has come up in appeal against the judgment of Sri R. C. Bajpai, Special Judge, Far-rukhabad dated 14-4-1972 acquitting Kan-haiyalal for offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,2. The charge against Kanhaiya-lal was that while working as supervisor Kanungo at Kaimganj he, on 5-10-1970 at 9.15 P. M. at his residence, accepted illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration, amounting to Rs. 250/- from Gayadin. It was also alleged that he committed criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as Government servant by accepting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 250/- as reward for getting Pattas executed in favour of Sohan Lal and Kailash Singh of village Savita-pur Behripur.3. Briefly stated the case for the prosecution was that the accused Kan-haiyalal was posted as Supervisor Kanungo in Kampil circle. Gayadin P.W. 6 was Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha of Savitapur Behripur. He was approache...
Mangal Singh Vs. Smt. Dalvindra Kaur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1824
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying for setting aside the orders passed by the Sessions Judge of Kumaun in his revi-sional jurisdiction as well as the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 488, Cr. P.C.2. The main ground urged is that the courts below have wrongly taken into consideration the income of the father of the husband into account which possibly could not have been done under Section 488, Cr. P.C. The courts below have taken into consideration the admission of the husband that he helped his father to cultivate twenty acres of land. He could, therefore, enjoy that income also. This is not such an absurd view taken by the courts below which would justify invoking its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by this Court. Virtually, it amounts to filing of a second revision against the order of the Magistrate which has now been barred under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C.3. Sri Kesho Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant has v...
Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Etc. Vs. S.K. Bhatnagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1881
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. A complaint under Section 276-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was filed in the Court of the City Magistrate, Kanpur by Sri S. K. Bhatnagar. Income-tax Officer, Salary Circle, Special Ward. Kanpur against:1. M/s. Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company Ltd.. Kanpur through Sri Ram Gopal Gupta, Director, Behari Niwas. Kanpur.2. Ram Prasad Gupta son of L. Behari Lal Gupta Director and Principal Officer of M/s. Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kalpi Road, Kanpur.3. K. N. Agarwal. Secretary and Principal Officer, Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur.It was alleged in the complaint that under the provisions of Section 192(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paving any income chargeable under the head 'salaries' shall at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the payment is made on the estimated income of the assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »