Allahabad Court October 1976 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. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All339
Onkar Singh, J. 1. This State appeal has been referred to the Full Bench on a reference made by one of us that the decision of a single Judge of this Court reported in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi v. Panna Lal. (AIR 1965 All 231): (1965 (1) Cri LJ 537) is incorrect and requires reconsideration. 2. The respondent Babu Lal carried on business in foodgrains etc. in Dhammaur in district Sultanpur. On 26-11-1969 D. P. Singh Food Inspector visited Dhammaur market at about 3.30 P. M. and found the respondent selling and exposing for sale pulses etc. without any licence as required under Rule 50 of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter to be referred as the rules). The respondent was found selling Kesari Dal sale of which is prohibited under Rule 44-A of the said rules read with Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 1632/XVI-II-1511/61 dated 20-5-1961. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Kesari Dal from the respondent for 60 Paise in the presence of two witnesses, Sri T...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1233
Onkar Singh, J.1. This State appeal has been referred to the Full Bench on a reference made by one of us that the decision of a single Judge of this Court reported in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi v. Panna Lal : AIR1965All231 is incorrect and requires reconsideration.2. The respondent Babu Lal carried on business in foodgrains etc. in Dhammaur in district Sultanpur. On 26-11-1969 D. p. Singh Food Inspector visited Dhammaur market at about 3.30 P. M. and found the respondent selling and exposing for sale pulses etc. without any licence as required under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter to be referred as the rules), The respondent was found selling Kesari Dal sale of which is prohibited under Rule 44-A of the said rules read with Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 1632/XVI-II-1511/61 dated 20-5-1961 The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Kesari Dal from the respondent for 60 Paise in the presence of two witnesses, Sri Tung Nath Tewari and Sri Ram S...
Gopal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ358
V.N. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sri I.N. Misra, Sessions Judge, Mainpuri by which he convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. The person who lost her life in this case was one Smt. Rewati. She was the wife of the appellant. It is said that the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife and, he, therefore, on 4-10-70 at about 10 A.M. took her to his field on the pretext of scraping grass and there inflicted Khurpi blows on her as a result of which she, died. This incident was said to have been witnessed by Saifulli and Sannu. After killing his wife the appellant was alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession in regard to his guilt before Hemendra Singh and Sukhram. It is further alleged that after making that confession he went to P.S. Kuraoli and lodged a report (Ex. Ka-5) there at 11-30 A.M. In that report he admitted to have killed his wife with a Khurpi. He was arrested and put up in th...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allahabad Milling Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR111(All)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (shortly called 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to give his decision on the additional ground which had been taken before him in the appeals for 1964-65 and 1965-66 that the Income-tax Officer has erred in charging penal interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order and disputed certain additions and disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer. At the time of hearing of the appeal an additional ground was raised on behalf of the assessee. That ground was that the Income-tax Officer erred on facts and in law in charging penal interest under Section 215 for filing a low estimate of the advance tax. The Appellate Assistant C...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Lahore Watch Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)62
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - By this application, the Income Tax Department has prayed for directing to the Income Tax Tribunal to refer the following questions of law :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that Rs. 44,863 was available to the assessee on 21-5-1968 besides the amount of Rs. 1,05,000 withdrawn from the various bank accounts ?2. Whether or not the Tribunals decision is vitiated in law by relying on the uncorroborated explanation of the assessee in the absence of any document any evidence regarding the source of currency notes of Rs. 44,863 ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalty of Rs. 52,000 imposed by IAC u/s. 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Whether a sum of Rs. 44,863 was available to the assessee on 21-5-1968, is in our opinion, a matter of inference from circumstances and probabilities of the case. The assessees exp...
Sukha and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All11
H.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants second set against the decree and judgment dated 18-11-1964 of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 412 of 1963 confirming the decree and judgment dated 25-9-1963 in original Suit No. 451 of 1962 of the first Munsif, Bulandshahr by which the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of certain agricultural plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint was decreed. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegations that defendant No 1 Vijai Singh (now defendant-respondent) entered into a contract for sale and executed a written agreement on 11-9-1963 agreeing to sell half share in the various plots mentioned in the agreement deed for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. Out of that amount a sum of Rs. 2,150/- was paid to him in cash and another sum of Rs. 1,350/-had been adjusted as that amount had been taken on loan by Vijai Singh from the plaintiff on the basis of the pronote dated 20...
Official Receiver, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Chandra Shekhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All77
K.N. Seth, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency proceeding. Ghasita was adjudged insolvent on 24-2-1967 in Insolvency Case No. 78 of 1966. The Official Receiver filed a petition for annulment of three sale deeds executed by him on 24-5-1966. Two of the sale deeds were in favour of his two sons, Fazla and Qasim. The third sale deed was executed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It was alleged that the sale deeds in favour of the sons were without consideration and fictitious and had been executed solely for the purpose of defrauding and defeating the creditors. With regard to the third sale deed it was asserted that the vendees knew fully well of the indebtedness of Ghasita and had also knowledge that the property had been attached before judgment at the instance of Yasin, creditor, in suit No. 428 of 1966 of the Court of the Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, and that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were not transferees in good faith and the sale deed was executed for inadequate consideration...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR107(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to entertain and decide the question with regard to the vires of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal that Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, instead of serving the purpose of the Act, puts a severe curb on it, particularly on the provisions contained in Sections 7(1) and 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and hence it is ultra vires of those sections, is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee owned shares in certain companies and these shares were notquoted in the stock exchange. For the purpose of assessment to Wealth-tax, he adopted certain method of valuation of these shares. This methodwas not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer w...
Sankatha Prasad Mishra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ361
K.B. Asthana. C.J.1. In respect of certain plots situate in village Sultanpur, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi, Sankatha Prasad Mishra and his three sons, hereinafter referred to as the 'applicants', filed a suit in the court of Munsif on 18-9-1967 for a permanent injunction against Janki Prasad Singh and Sharda Prasad Singh, hereinafter called as the 'opposite parties' restraining them from interfering with the applicants' possession. This suit was dismissed on 29-5-1971 as the applicants failed to establish their possession over the disputed plots. The applicants then filed an appeal, which was declared to have abated as a Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued bringing the area in which the disputed plots were situated under consolidation. The applicants had also filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the court of the Judicial Officer against the opposite parties for a declaratio...
Smt. B.K. Bose and anr. Vs. Court of Prescribed Authority, Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All14
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 2-7-1976 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) passed under Section 21 read with Section 43 (2) (rr) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the new Act). 2. Respondent No. 2 Narain Das and his son Bhagwan Das, who is respondent No. 3. were the joint owners of house No. 22, Lukerganj, Allahabad. They had obtained permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act III of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 30-8-1971 which was eventually confirmed by the State Government under Section 7-F of U. P. Act III of 1947 by its order dated 1-6-1972. The case of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in brief was that they were refugees from Sindh and after partition they came to live in Gaya (Bihar) but later shifted to Allahabad and had been living in a rented house on a monthly rent of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »