Allahabad Court November 1976 Judgments
Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Atma Ram Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All211
Trivedi, J. 1. The following question on reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court has come for decision before this Full Bench.'Is the plaintiff's suit (No. 16 of 1973) maintainable having regard to the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.'2. Atma Ram Srivastava is the landlord of a certain house let out by him to Sardar Balbir Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The defendant being in arrears of rent for April and May, 1968, his tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 22-5-1968 served on 4-7-1968 by which the defendant was asked to vacate the premises on the expiry of three months from service of notice and payment of two months arrears of rent was demanded, The tenant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. On 28-5-1969 Atma Ram Srivastava, opposite party in this revision, filed a suit against him in the Court of the Munsif South, Lucknow (Regular Suit No. 354 of 1969). In that suit he claimed a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits with...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirmala Kanta Vs. Mulk Raj Kohli and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All145
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. These are two connected revisions and they have arisen from one suit. A few facts may be noticed. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property in suit. His assertion is that he purchased the property in the name of his wife, Smt Shanti Devi, defendant No. 2. After the purchase, certain alterations took place in the property and they were also financed by the plaintiff from his own money. Throughout the plaintiff remained in possession of the , property and realised rent from the, tenants who occupied certain portions of the property. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of his younger son, Bansi Lal. A gift deed was obtained fictitiously by the defendant No. 1 in her favour from the defendant No. 2 on 27th December, 1969. The plaintiff was not aware of the said gift deed till some time in 1975. The defendant No. 1 gave a notice through her counsel to the tenants asking them to pay rent to her. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the gi...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer, b-ward and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR834(All)
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ quashing the notices issued to it (the petitioner) under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69, and for issue of a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, ' B ' Ward, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as ' the ITO '), from proceeding with the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of such notices.2. At the outset, certain material facts which are not in dispute may be stated. The petitioner is a firm which was assessed to income-tax. In the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner claimed that it had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 on May 19, 1962, from M/s. Jain Finance Distributors (India) (Private) Ltd., having its registered office at Calcutta (hereinafter referredto as the ' Calcutta company '). This alleged borrowing was shown in the entry dated...
Tag this Judgment!Pargan Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ903
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Third Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 30th October, 1972 convicting the applicant under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of the fine he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Magistrate had further ordered the applicant to remove the encroachment within 5 days of the order failing to do so he was liable to a fine of Rs. 10/-per clay.2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the applicant had constructed a house at Kilometer No. 217 of the provincial G.T. East. A report was made in the police station and the applicant was asked to desist from doing so but he did not pay any heed to the request. Hence he was served with a notice. The applicant still persisted with the construction. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Assistant Engineer, P.W. D. against the applicant under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Prasad and ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All147
Sinha, J.1. This is a First Appeal From Order dated 1-5-1976 passed by the Civil Judge. Azamgarh, in execution proceedings.2. The facts leading up to this appeal can briefly be stated as under:3. Respondent No. 1 obtained a decree against the appellants for Rupees 28,585.85 from the Calcutta High Court. In execution of that decree, a house, shops and bhumidhari plots belonging to the appellants were attached. The auction sale held in respect of bhumidhari plots was cancelled, while the house and shops were sold for Rs. 1,44,000.00 on 8-1-1976. Thereafter on 4th February, 4976, the appellants filed objections under Section 47 C.P.C. On 6th February, 1976, the appellants filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale, and deposited the entire amount as required under the said provision of law. The objections under Section 47, C.P.C. were dismissed as not pressed on 17th of April, 1976. The application under Order XXI, Rule 89 was rejected by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh Vs. the Cantonment Board, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All204
K.B. Asthana, C.J.1. These three appeals are decided by a common judgment as the question involved in each of them is similar.2. Each of the appellants made separate applications for sanction to the Cantonment Board, Meerut for making additional constructions in their houses standing on different Cantonment lands. The Cantonment Board granted sanction on various dates in 1968. Shortly thereafter within about six weeks the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command in exercise of his powers under Section 52 of the Cantonments Act 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed that the decision of the Board shall not he carried into effect for three months and called upon the Board to show cause why a direction should not be made out (not?) to carry into effect the decision of the Board. The Cantonment Board did not show any cause. After waiting for about two and a half months the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, passed final orders not to carry into effect the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram Vs. Chiraunji Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All449
H.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the decree and judgment dated 5-12-1963 of the Civil Judge, Mainpuri in civil appeal No. 98 of 1960 confirming the decree and judgment dated 25-1-1960 of the Munsif Shikohabad in original suit No. 119 of 1958 by which the plaintiff's suit for possession of the property in suit was decreed.2. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegations that the land in dispute belonged to Sri Ram Chandra Maharaj Birajman Mandir Ram Chandraji and Harbilas was its sarbarakar. The property was given to Chiranjilal defendant No. 2 (respondent) in 1951 by means of a lease deed dated 1-9-1951. He was allowed to make additions and alterations but he was not allowed to sub-let or transfer the property. He could, however, remove the material at the time of vacating the possession. Initially the lease was for one year only. It was alleged that Chiranjilal defendant No. 2 vacated the property and put defendant No. 1 in possession by executing a sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dass and anr. Vs. Debi Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All155
J.S. Trivedi, J.1. Debi Prasad and Gaya Prasad respondents filed a suit for ejectment against appellants Ram Dass and Hulasi and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with the allegation that the disputed house originally belonged to Babu Lal and Anandi Lal under a sale deed executed in their favour on 4-8-1947 and it was subsequently purchased by the respondents from them. Ram Das was a tenant of the premises when it was purchased by the respondents. He had illegally sublet the premises to Hulasi, appellant No. 2, without obtaining consent of the landlord and it was on this ground of sub-tenancy amongst others that a decree for ejectment was sought by them against the chief-tenant as well as Hulasi. The suit was contested by Hulasi who contended that the sub-tenancy was created with the consent of Babu Lal and Anandi Lal original landlords, about 20 years ago and that the respondents had acquiesced in his occupation of the premises and did not take any steps all these years chal...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad Sarraf Vs. Smt. Sukra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All210
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This amendment application has been moved on behalf of the plaintiff appellant under Order VI. Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to amend the plaint. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendants respondents and in reply a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant. The necessity to move the amendment application arose in this manner The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he entered into a partnership with one Satya Narain and on 30th January, 1961, the partnership was dissolved and accounting took place wherein a sum of Rupees 3638.31 was found to be due to the plaintiff from the said Satya Narain. The said amount was, however, not paid by Satya Narain to the plaintiff and, therefore, he was compelled to file the suit against the two defendants, the defendant No. 1 being the widow and the defendant No. 2 being the son of the said Satya Narain. Satya Narain died some time in February/March 1963 before the institution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC147(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner manufactures aluminium in its factory situated at Renukoot, from bauxite by subjecting it to electrolytic processes. The aluminium produced by the petitioner, according to the petitioner's case, falls in three categories, i.e., cast products, rolled products and extrusions (see annexure C to the amendment application). The process adopted for manufacturing these products as set out by the petitioner is this. Alumina is extracted from bauxite and is then subjected to electrolytic processes in the potrooms. The alumina in the potrooms is in the shape of molten metal. This molten metal is fed into cast iron moulds and aluminium ingots and aluminium alloy ingots are produced. By the same process of casting, wire bars and properzi redraw rods are also produced. The process for making wire bars, as stated, is by pouring the molten metal in casts and then chilling it directly. So far as properzi redraw rods are concerned, the process is as follows : Molten me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »