Allahabad Court October 1976 Judgments
Pooran Singh S/O of Sunder Singh, Resident of 22, Gurdwara Quarter, Ch ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)129
P. N. Bakshi, J. - A very short question of law is involved in this writ petition. The petitioner are holders of separate stage carriage permits. The vehicles of the petitioner have to enter the limits of Town Area Babugarh, halt there for some time, pick up and drop out passengers and then proceed outside the limits of Town Area for the respective destination of the passengers. The Town Area Committee, Babugarh has imposed a toll tax of Rs. 3/- on every stage coach entering within the limits of Town Area, Babugarh. Notification No. 165-J-T.F.C-1/21-466-72 dated 2-11-1973 purposing to the under section 15-B (3) of U.P. Town Area Act, 1914 was published on 17-11-1973 under the authority and signature of the District Magistrate, Meerut, respondent No. 2 to this petition vide (Annexure 3). This imposition has been challenged a illegal and ultravires.2. It appears that by Notification No. 271/T/XXXIII-321-T-57 dated 21-1-1958 published in the U.P. Gazette dated 25-1-1958 (Annexure 1) to th...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All109
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is a defendant's, Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff-respondent brought Suit No. 424 of 1967 for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant for A shop and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The suit ultimately came up for hearing on 27th November, 1971, after several adjournments granted at the instance of the defendant. On this day the court proceeded to hear the suit under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. After hearing the plaintiff it decreed the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent end damages.3. The defendant applied under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C for the setting aside of the decree dated 27th November, 1971. The learned Munsif, by an order dated 5th February, 1972, held that the judgment was pronounced under Order XVII, Rule 3, against which an appeal Lay, and there is no provision for setting it aside under Order IX. The application was dismissed.4. The defendant, on 7th February, 1972 filed another application under Section 151, C. P. C. for the rec...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Kotwaj Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC141(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law have been referred to this court by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh :(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was competent to record a finding that the two firms constituted an 'association of persons' and were not separate firms when the only dispute raised before him was whether the firm at Sirsaganj was an agent of the applicant-firm or not ?(2) Whether there was any material on record to hold that the applicant-firm and the firm at Sirsaganj constituted an 'association of persons' and were liable for a joint assessment ?(3) Whether the learned Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in holding that the two firms were 'dealers' within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-clause (14), read with the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act and were liable to joint assessment ?(4) Whether the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram AdhIn Vs. Shyama Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ453
ORDERG.D. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising out of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by Shyama Devi, opposite party No. 1, by means of an application dated 3-6-1975. A report was called for from the Station Officer concerned and after receipt of the report, the preliminary order was drawn up by the Magistrate on 5-8-1975 and the parties were directed to appear on 23-6-1975. On 7-6-75 Shyama Devi moved another application praying that, it being a case of emergency, the property in dispute should be attached and accepting this prayer, the Magistrate attached the property by his order dated 11-6-75. The petitioner challenged the legality of the proceedings pending before the Magistrate on two grounds. Firstly he alleged that there was no likelihood of breach of peace and his second point was that because the court had passed an order of attachment of the property in dispute under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. it had no further jurisdiction to...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Kotwaj Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)45
1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law have been referred to this court by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh :(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was competent to record a finding that the two firms constituted an 'association of persons' and were not separate firms when the only dispute raised before him was whether the firm at Sirsaganj was an agent of the applicant-firm or not ?(2) Whether there was any material on record to hold that the applicant-firm and the firm at Sirsaganj constituted an 'association of persons' and were liable for a joint assessment ?(3) Whether the learned Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in holding that the two firms were 'dealers' within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-clause (14), read with the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act and were liable to joint assessment ?(4) Whether the finding of the Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Chandra Srivastava and ors. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All310
K.N. Singh, J. 1. These are three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which raise common questions of law. We consider it proper to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners are members of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) 'Nyayik Sewa'. They have invoked jurisdiction of this court for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the U. P. Government notification No. 41/13/1968-Appointment-4, dated March 12, 1975, and also the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules as notified by the U. P. Government Notification No. 41/13/1966-Appointment-4, dated March 21, 19-75, and for the issue of a mandamus restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from giving effect to the said Rules and making any appointment in pursuance thereof. 3. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued the notification dated March 12, 1975, under Article 237 of the Constitution directing that the provisions of Chap. VI of Part VI of the Constitution and any rules made thereunder shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Duley Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All251
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This writ petition and the connected writ petitions have been filed by transport operators belonging mostly to the State of Rajasthan and some of them to Uttar Pradesh.2. The State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh framed four schemes for four routes:--(i) Mathura-Alwar,(ii) Mathura-Kama-Kosi,(iii) Agra-Dholpur,(iv) Agra-Bharatpur,The four notifications in respect of all the four schemes were published in the U. P. Gazette. Copies of the notifications were also sent to Rajasthan for being pasted on the notice board of the transport authorities in Rajasthan. Some of the private bus operators filed objections. After disposing of these objections, the schemes as finally approved by the State Government, were published in the U. P. Gazette and notifications were also put up on the notice board of the transport authorities in Rajasthan. The schemes, though proposed by the State Transport Undertaking of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Undertaking'), rec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P.) L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: [1979]118ITR825(All)
D.M. Chandrasekhar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ' Tribunal '), has referred the following two questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ').' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment as made by the Income-tax Officer is valid in law ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the whole of the sum of Rs. 2,20,192.51 being the amount of compensation received and entered in the books of the previous year had, according to the mercantile system of accountancy, become receivable prior to the previous year so that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether or not it represented partly or wholly revenue receipt, and whether the capital cost of the plant should have been reduced by the amount of Rs. 1,11,466 '2. The relevant facts, briefly state...
Tag this Judgment!Bans NaraIn Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All6
Mufti, J.1. The petitioner was employed as ,a permanent Warden in the Service of the State. On 10th June, 1969 42 inmates of Sampurnand Shivir, which is an open Jail, were given in his charge in order to take work from them. One of the inmates, namely, Sri Barati, escaped quietly, allegedly, due to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner was charge-sheeted. There were four charges against him. He denied the charges. Upon enquiry, which followed, only two of the charges were found proved against him, On consideration of the matter, the Adhikshak, Sampurnand Shivir (Superintendent of Jail) opposite party No. 2, by his order dated 29-4-1970, reinstated the petitioner with minor punishment of withholding his annual increment for two years. In the opinion held by him, that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was not adequate, Karagar Mahanirichhak (Inspector General of Prisons, U. P., Lucknow), opposite party No. 3, acting under Rule 1135 of the Jail Manual, s...
Tag this Judgment!Aley Ahmad Abidi Vs. Dist. Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All539
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. K. C. Agarwal, J., has referred to the Full Bench the following question of law: 'Whether the Committee of Management of an Intermediate College is a statutory body, and if so, whether a writ petition filed against it will be maintainable?' 2. The above question consists of two parts. The first part is whether the committee of Management of an Intermediate College is a statutory body? The second part of the question, as we understand, is that if such committee is not a statutory body, would a writ petition against it be maintainable. If such committee is a statutory body it does not admit of any doubt that a writ petition against it, is maintainable. 3. The long Preamble to the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), states that it (the Act) was enacted to establish a Board for regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh and to prescribe the courses therefor. The Act as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »