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.
Munnalal Gupta Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All416
Gulati, J.1. This is a first appeal from order against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 20th September, 1969.2. The first respondent, the U. P. Financial Corporation, entered into an agreement with an industrial concern called 'M/s. Raki Electronics, Kanpur' 'through its proprietor, Sri Ram Kishan Gupta, for the grant of a loan to the latter of a sum of Rs. 70,000 for purposes of setting up a factory for the production of radios and allied equipments. The loan was secured by taking a mortgage of the machineries and properties of the debtor as also by a collateral security in the shape of a house mortgaged by Munna Lal, the appellant. The property mortgaged by Munnalal is detailed in Schedule 'B' of Annexure I to the agreement, while the properties mortgaged by the debtor are detailed in Schedules 'A', and 'C' to the aforesaid Annexure I. The agreement evidencing the loan dated 13th December, 1961 is a composite document embodying the terms ...
Akhilesh Chand Varshney Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All42
A. Banerji, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decree passed by the court below is bad in law for the Court of Munsif Koil, Ali-garh, had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972. He further contended that the suit could only be tried by a Court of Small Causes or any other court invested with such power. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the suit was properly tried by the Court of Munsif Koil on the regular side as the entire suit could not be tried by the Court or Judge Small Causes or any court invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes, 2. The suit in the present case was filed on 1st June, 1971, in the Court of Munsif Koil, Aligarh. In the suit four reliefs were asked for -- firstly, for a decree for possession of ejectment from the suit premises; secondly, for recovery of rent and damages amounting to Ru...
Mst. Kashmira Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All458
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J.1. These two writ petitions are connected and are, therefore being decided by a common judgment. The village where the land in dispute is situate was brought under consolidation operations. In the Basic year the name of Smt Kashmira, petitioner in writ petition No. 7800 of 1971 and respondent No. 4 in writ petition No. 8295 of 1971, was recorded along with the name of Harbansh Singh who is respondent No. 2 in the first writ petition and the petitioner in the second one. An objection was filed by Harbansh Singh claiming to the exclusive tenure holder of the land in dispute. According to him, the name of Smt. Kashmira was wrongly recorded in the village papers. A pedigree was set up which was not disputed before the Consolidation Authorities. One Sheodutta Singh had three sons Phulgen, Mata Dayal and Hardeo. Phulgen had a son Ganga Singh whose widow is Smt. Kashmira. Harbansh is the son of Mata 'Dayal. Hardeo died issueless. The findings of fact as recorded by the conso...
J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR695(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year involved is 1957-58 with the previous year ending on 31st December, 1956. The asses-see filed the return on 31st December, 1957, and the assessment was made on 27th March, 1958. For the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53, the assessments were made on 20th March, 1956, and 29th March, 1956, respectively. Interest on advance tax under Section 18A(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, amounting to Rs. 9,696 and Rs. 5,083 for the two years respectively was allowed to the assessee by adjustment against the existing demand for the assessment year 1957-58. This means that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee had received interest from the income-tax department on advance tax relating to the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53. This interest the assessee did not show in its ...
Kamlapat Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR783(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64.2. The assessee is a partnership firm owning two sugar factories--one at Bhatni in district Deoria and the other at Motinagar in district Faizabad. At the end of the relevant previous year the assessee made a provision in its books of accounts for the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,04,023 towards interest due on arrears of cess and purchase tax, an amount which the assessee had become liable to pay but had not paid during the relevant previous year. The yum of Rs. 1,04,023 is made up of two items, (i) Rs. 1,02,461 in respect of interest payable on arrears of cess, and (ii) Rs. 1,352 in respect of interest on arrears of purchase tax in respect of Bhatni Mills, The assessee claimed to deduct this amount from its profits liable to income-tax. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the provision for interest represented a con...
Man Singh Vs. Ch. Bishambar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All335
ORDER1. When this revision came up for admission before a learned Single Judge, he referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench and directed that the revision be listed for admission after the opinion of the larger Bench has been received:--'If a building is constructed in 1964 and suit is filed in 1972 for ejectment of the tenant and the suit is decreed in 1973 by the court of Small Causes and the revision instituted in 1973 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act remains pending till 1974 and ten years' period since the completion of the construction lapsed, can the suit be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.'2. The material facts giving rise to this revision are that on the 3rd May, 1972, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, claiming to be the landlord of the premises in question, instituted a suit in the court of the learned City Munsif. Meerut, for ej...
Pratap Veer Kakkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR435(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. The following question of law, based on identical set of facts, has been referred to this court for opinion in the above noted references :'Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was right in holding that the salary received by the assessee was the income of the Hindu joint family of which the assessee was the karta, and not his individual income ?'2. The assessees are brothers and along with their father constituted a Hindu joint family. This joint family carried on business in the name and style of Kohinoor General Industries up to the assessment year 1959-60. Later, there was a partial partition in the family when the joint family business was converted into a partnership firm consisting of the two brothers and their father as partners. In July, 1961, a private limited company was formed in the name and style of M/s. Ghaziabad General Industries (P.) Ltd., which took over the business run by the partnership firm. The assessees and t...
Jado Rai Vs. Onkar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All413
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the second revision. The courts below held, while deciding an issue framed thus in a pending suit 'whether the suit is liable to be stayed?' that the suit was not liable to be stayed. That was the finding of the trial court and the lower revisional court affirmed the said finding. In thesecond revision before me it is contended that the courts below have not properly construed the pleadings in the two suits in question and they were too much pre-occupied with the ingredients of Section 10, Civil P. C. and they failed to consider the applicability of a Section 151, Civil P. C. In my opinion, the courts below were right in holding that the suit in question could not be stayed under Section 10, Civil P. C. This conclusion can be arrived at on the simple and undisputed ground that the court where the earlier suit was filed did not have the jurisdiction to grant the-relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The first suit was filed in the court of the Munsif an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›