Allahabad Court November 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.
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. 1. State of U.P. 2. Sales Tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)82
C. S. P. Singh, J. - 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 petitioners 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 producted. The process for making Wire Bars, as stated is pouring the molten metal in casts and then chilling it directly. So far Properzi Redraw Rods are concerned, the process is as follows. Molten metal is pour...
Gajey Pal Singh and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All79
R.B. Misra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue, U. P., as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and arises in the following circumstances,2. There is a bridge over river Krishna known as Rajpur Chajpur Bridge in the Rajpur Chajpur Tehsil Budhana District Muzaffarnagar within the local limits of Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar. The said parishad charges toll from the vehicles crossing the bridge on the said river. The Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, leases out the right to collect tolls from the members of the public and the conveyances etc. passing over that bridge. An auction was conducted by the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, for leasing out the right to recover toll from the vehicles crossing the said bridge on 26th of June, 1963. Gajey Pal Singh and Tribhuwan Kumar jointly were the highest bidders and their bid was accepted by the Zila Parishad for Rs. 93,000/- for three years at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per year to be paid to the Zila Pa...
Raja Ram Raja Babu and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ448
ORDERM.B. Farooqui, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint, Jamuna Prasad v. Raja Ram and Anr., under Sections 500, 420 and 109, I.P.C. pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.2. The learned Counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this application on the ground that it was filed before the Allahabad Bench and not before Lucknow Bench of the High Court, as it should have been. The objection is founded upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. S.T.A. Tribunal (AIR 1976 SC 331). In that case, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Paras 7 and 14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. Paras 7 and 14 read thus:7 (1) The new High Court shall have, in respect of the whole of the United Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the Law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable ...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Sugar Mills.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)195
D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (shortly called the Tribunal), has referred to this to this court the following four question of law, under sub-S. (1) of S. 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (shortly called the Act) :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not exceed his jurisdiction in enhancing the assessment (2) Whether a correct interpretation of the Notification of the U.P. Government dated 27-1-1961, the resolution dated 10-9-1963, passed by the Board of Directors of the company and the Trust Deed dated 30-9-1963, the liability in respect of gratuity against which the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid and debited to the gratuity fund in the relevant previous year accrued in the relevant previous year (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the expenditure allowable under S. 28(1) or under S. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is Rs. 50,000, or Rs. 2,03,207 ...
Ram Lakhan Vs. Ram Govind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All328
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff further claimed that in case he was found out of possession, then possession should be awarded to him of the property in dispute. The plaintiff also claimed, in the alternative, that in case specific performance could not be decreed then a decree for a sum of Rs. 127/-should be passed in his favour in respect oil the earnest money which was paid by him to the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The nature of the controversy will appear from the following passage which has been extracted from the judgment of the lower appellate court;'the plaintiff brought the suit with the allegations that the plots in suit belonged to Jhaga father of defendants 1 to 3 (appellants 2 to 4), that the suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Act 1 of 1951 against one Bhikam was decreed by the learned Revenue Court as well as by the Commissioner's Court; that Jhaga died during the pendency of the appe...
Har Pal Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All302
1. The Municipal Board. Musscorie has a ropeway connecting the Mall Road to Gunhill. On 24-3-1972, tenders were invited by the Board for running the ropeway. The petitioner's tender was the highest. The tender was accepted and thereafter on 14-6-1972, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Board for running the ropeways for three years with effect from 15-6-72 to 14-6-1975. Amongst the various conditions of the agreement, one of the conditions stipulated was that the ropeways were to be given to the petitioner in a running condition and thereafter the contractor would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the ropeways. The ropeway was handed over to the petitioner on 19-6-1972. It thereafter transpires that the petitioner informed the Board that the ropeway was not in a fit condition and as such the royalty fixed under the agreement should be reduced. This the petitioner did by his letter dated 13-11-1972. On 4-12-1973, the President of the Municipal Bo...
Shahdara (Delhi)-saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. Etc. Vs. the Distri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All304
Gopi Nath, J. 1. These two writ petitions are directed against the orders of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 dated 11-7-1975, 31-7-1976 and 7-8-1975. By these orders M/s. Sheikh Saeed Ahmad and Co., the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12057 of 1976, has been restrained from cutting and removing certain trees standing on the land by the side of the railway track from Sahadra to Saharanpur. The orders dated 11-7-1975 and 7-8-1975 were passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut and are annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petitions, while order dated 31-7-1975 was passed by the District Magistrate Saharanpur and is annexure 11 to the petitions. The petitioners have prayed for the quashing of these orders. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10008 cf 1975 claims to be the owner of the trees in dispute having planted them on the land which was settled with them under an agreement with the Government of India for running a light Rly. from Sahadra to Saharanpur. They sold these trees to...
Gajadhar Singh Vs. Hanwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All137
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder is the appellant and the judgment-debtor is the respondent. A cross-objection also has been filed by the respondent-judgment-debtor.2 The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:A suit for declaration, demolition oi construction and in the alternative for possession was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. It was filed in the court of District Judge, Bhadohi in 1948 and the same was decided on May 13, 1949. An execution application was filed in the court of Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur in August, 1950. This execution case was subsequently transferred to the court of Munsif, Gyanpur and in the execution proceedings before the Munsif, the judgment-debtor-respondent filed objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The objections were dismissed by the execution court but on appeal the lower appellate court allowed the same. The lower appellate court, while allowing the appea...
Raj Kumar Shrawan Kumar Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR570(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, a firm, runs an oil and tin factory. The financial year of the firm runs from Asarh Sudi 2 to Asarh Sudi 1. For the year 1965, the accounts were closed in July, 1965. In the accounts provision for payment of bonus was made and a reserve for bonus was created, and the amount debited to the profit and loss account. The amounts debited were to the extent of 20% for bonus and 20% as reserve for bonus. This method was followed from the accounting year 1966 to.1972-73. In accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, amounts credited to the bonus reserve account were transferred back to the profit and loss account after four years. The Income-tax Officer accepted the method of accounting aforesaid for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1973-74. 2. By circular letter dated 18th August, 1973, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued instructions to the effect that deduction for the bonus reserve should not be allowed. Subsequent to this circ...
Jagat Nath Wahal and ors. Vs. the U.P. State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All83
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the respondent 1).Through the said writ petition, the respondent 1 prayed for quashing the order dated 27th February, 1973 passed by the State Transport Appellate (Tribunal) at Lucknow (hereinafter called 'the Appellate Tribunal'). The dispute in the present case is with regard to the grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Delhi, an inter-State route. It appears that applications were filed by the appellants for grant of stage carriage permit sometime in 1972 on the aforesaid route. These applications were published on March 4, 1972 in the official Gazette of the State of U. P. No one filed any objection to the said applications. These applications were, thereafter, heard by the State Transport Authority on various dates viz. on August 7/8/9 anl 23 of 1972. They were re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »