Allahabad Court December 1976 Judgments
Hari Ram and anr. Vs. Siya Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All244
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction. The brief facts are these: The plaintiffs claimed to be the bhumidhara in possession of the grove shikmi plot No, 1. It was alleged that the plot was acquired by compromise in Suit No. 147/ 1378 pending in the revenue court. In the said plot the plaintiffs 'had raised a Bandh about 16 or 17 years back for the protection of the plots and its trees from the water of the pond which was situated to the west of the plot. The bandh was constructed with the consent of the inhabitants of the village and it was for the benefit of the entire village. The defendants first set made an application in October 1963 to the S.D.M. for the removal of the bandh under Section 133 of the Cr. P. C. It was wrongly alleged in the application that the defendants second set had raised the bandh. The Tehsildar went on the spot on 6-10-1963 and he got the bandh opened at one point and through a channel got the water off in the e...
Tag this Judgment!Sheomurat Ram Vs. Smt. Savitri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All322
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal. He has substantially lost in the courts below. The brief facts are these:One Madho Halwai executed a sale deed in favour of Sheomurat Ram, the defendant-appellant, on 26th August, 1958 for Rs. 4,000/-. On the same day Sheomurat Ram executed a deed of agreement in favour of Madho Halwai promising to reconvey the said property to the latter if the sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid within five years. The vendor, Madho Halwai, died on 27th November, 1958. His son, Purshottam, had predeceased him leaving sons and one daughter, Smt. Savitri Devi. Smt. Savitri Devi instituted the suit from which the instant appeal has arisen against Sheomurat Ram who was im-pleaded as defendant No. 1. She implea-ded her brothers and nephews and nieces as pro forma defendants alleging that they were not in a position to deposit the sum of Rs. 4,000/- and, therefore, they had agreed that she might deposit the amount and get back the property from the vendee i...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1036
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mangal and four others pray that the proceedings initiated against them under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the conditional order passed thereon dated 11th May, 1976 as also the direction issued under Section 142 Cr.P.C. on 15th May, 1976 be quashed.2. One Babu Ram filed an application In the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad on 10th May, 1976 praying that proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. be taken against the applicants who had made certain encroachment on the public way. Babu Ram put in another application under Section 142 Cr.P.C. mentioning that despite protest Mangal and others were continuing to make further construction and that they should be restrained from doing so. On both these applications the sub-divisional Magistrate made an order on 11th May, 1976 which read thus:Seen the papers and the eifidavit produced before me. Issue conditional! order Under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and injunction order Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Air Gases Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Air Gases Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ503All
K.N. Singh, J.1. Indian Air Gases Limited manufacturers of oxygen and dissolve actyiene gases at its factory at Moghalsarai in Varanasi district. It has its registered office at Kanpur. Air Gases Mazdeor Sangh is the union of the employees working in the factory at Moghalsarai. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 are the employees of the respondent-company who have been working in the factory at Moghalsarai ever since their employment. In September, 1975, the management of the respondent-company transferred petitioners Nos. 2 to II from its factory at Moghalsarai to its head office at Kanpur under Clause 8(b) of the standing orders. The standing orders proposed by the respondent-company were certified by the certifying officer on 23rd July, 1975, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The union, namely, petitioner No. 1, as well as the affected employees, petitioners Nos. 2 to 11, preferred appeal before the Industrial Tribunal (1), Allahabad, under Section 6 of the Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Changi Vs. Manni and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ883
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. Smt. Changi has filed this application under Section 438 of the Cri.P.C. praying that the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bindki dated 22nd July, 1974. and the revisional order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fatehpur dated 4th May, 1970 be quashed.2. Smt. Changi moved an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. That application was allowed by an order dated 8th December, 1909. Revision application filed against the order was also dismissed on 4th May, 1970. The applicant then moved an application for enforcement of the order granting maintenance to her and to her daughter. During the course of enforcement proceedings, it is said, a compromise petition was filed on 22nd July, 1974 and on the same date, the learned Magistrate made an order stating that the case was decided in terms of compromise and that the compromise shall form part of his order. Subsequently, the applicant moved an ...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Cold Storage Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: [1988]115ITR819(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This petition is directed against the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. The short facts are as under : 2. The petitioner started construction of a cold storage from August 19, 1960, which was completed in the assessment year 1962-63. A return under Section 139 was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1961-62. It was claimed that no business was done and that only installation and constructions were done in the relevant financial year. The ITO passed an order under Section 143(3) accepting the claim made by the petitioner that no business was made in that year. 3. The residential premises of the petitioner were searched in August, 1972, under Section 132 of the Act and in the course of investigation the valuation of the petitioner's cold storage was referred to the Valuation Officer. His report was submitted on 20th February, 1975, and therein the investment in the construction of the building portion only was estimated at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Cold Stronge Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, b Ward, Luc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR819(All)
R. M. SAHAI J. - This petition is directed against the notice issued to the petitioner under s. 148 of the I.T. Act. The short facts are as under :The petitioner started construction of a cold storage from August 19, 1960, which was completed in the assessment year 1962-63. A return under s. 139 was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1961-62. It was claimed that no business was done and that only installation and constructions were done in the relevant financial year. The ITO passed an order under s. 143(3) accepting the claim made by the petitioner that no business was made in that year.The residential premises of the petitioner were searched in August, 1972, under s. 132 of the Act and in the course of investigation the valuation of the petitioners cold storage was referred to the Valuation Officer. His report was submitted on February 20, 1975, and therein the investment in the construction of the building portion only was estimated at Rs. 1,46,530 during the financial ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhtar Hasan and anr. Vs. District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All247
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The controversy raised in this writ petition centers round the construction of Section 39 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The facts giving rise to the petition are these:--The Municipal Board, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the Board) comprised of 17 members and the President. Nine members of the Board submitted their resignation to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, on 13th September, 1976, who passed en order on the same day under Section 10-AA (2) of the U. P. Local Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (U. P. Ordinance No, 18 of 1976) (hereinafter called the Ordinance) assuming the charge as administrator of the Board.2. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that at the time of assumption of charge by the District Magistrate under Section 10-AA (2) the resignation of nine members had not been forwarded to the State Government. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate th...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR178(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ for quashing the proceedings for recovery of income-tax demanded from him for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56.2. Most of the material facts are not in dispute and they may be stated. For the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer, Circle 1(10), Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.T.O.'), purported to make provisional assessments under Section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Demand notices were issued to the petitioner in pursuance of such provisional assessments. As the petitioner defaulted in paying the amounts so demanded, the I.T.O. levied two sums of penalty of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,500 on January 27, 1956, and March 5, 1956, respectively, for those two years. On March 15, 1956, the I.T.O. also issued to the Collector, Kanpur, a recovery certificate under Sub-section (2) of Se...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT29(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question, on the undisput facts, that arises for consideration, is the manner of determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Admittedly the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of cigarette and smoking tobaccos of diverse kinds thaoughout India and owns and operates five cigarette factories 'in different States including that one Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh. Under the Self Removal Procedure introduced, with effect from 1968, the petitioner used to submit price lists to the respondents from time to time as required under Rule 178 (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Such lists detailed the prices for sales from the factory to distributors, from distributors to wholesale dealers, from wholesale dealers to retailers and upto point of time sale to consumers. For the purpose of Section 4 of the prices charged by the distributors to wholesale dealers were taken to be the value for assessment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »