Allahabad Court February 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.
Smt. Sudama Devi, Wife of Shri Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Shri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)191
K. B. Asthana C.J. - The points which arise for consideration in the present case is similar to those raised in Civil Misc. Writ No. 781 of 1975 (decided on 12th February 1976) : 1976 CTR (All.) 188. For reasons given in that petition, the order in question cannot be sustained.2. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer and direct that the matter should be decided afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate their objection. We further direct the commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow to have the matter tried and decided by another Income-tax Officer at Deoria other than the one who passed the impugned order, and those who sworn the counter affidavit in the case. In case no such Officer is available at Deoria, he should assign an Income tax Officer from outside to hear the case at Deoria. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. The Income tax Officer concerned should decide the within a period of three months from the dat...
Shri Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, Sole Proprietor, M/S. Jamuna Prasad Munni ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)189
K. B. Asthana, C.J. - In the present case a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner under section 132 of the Income-tax, 1961. A large number of valuable, fixed deposit receipts and bank accounts were seized. Subsequently, an order under section 132(5) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer treating the property as belonging to the firm Messrs. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal. Objection were filed by a number of person claiming some of the properties seized to be theirs. These objections were not taken note of by the Income-tax Officer and the order in question was passed without any notice to the objectors. In Civil Misc. writ 781 of 1975, 1976 CTR (All.) 188 filed by the objectors, we have quashed the order. Inasmuch as the order in question has been passed on the assumption that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, without taking note of the objections filed by third parties, the present order cannot stand as respects the petitioner as any decision on the o...
Bhagwat Prasad Vs. Damodar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All411
G.D. Srivastava, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of the 1st Additional Civil Judge Bulandshahr. The appellant brought a suit in the court of Munsif Bulandshahr for demolition of certain constructions raised by respondents Land 2 in a strip of land in front of their house. The admitted facts of the case are that Vidya Ram respondent No. 4 was the original owner of a plot of land shown by letters A-B-C-D in the plaint map situated in Dadri town. He divided his plot into five portions, and sold one plot to respondent No. 1, two portions were sold to the plaintiff-appellant and the fourth portion was sold to respondent No. 3, while the last portion was retained by respondent No. 4 for himself. To the north of these portions, a strip of land 10 feet in width was provided for the benefit of all the purchasers and according to the plaint case, it was agreed upon that no constructions would be made on this strip of land by any purchaser. Respondents 1 and 2 made ...
M/S. Ram Prakash Kamlesh Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Sales-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)140
Asthana, C.J. - These are three Reference at the instance of the assessee in all of which a similar question of law has been referred for opinion to this Court under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. On 28-2-1966 the Sales Tax Officer passed ex-parte orders against the assessee for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. In respect of these assessments the assessee took two remedies permitted to him by law. He filed three applications under section 30 of the Act for setting aside the exparte assessment orders. He filed three appeals also under section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The Sales Tax Officer dismissed all the three applications under section 30 of the Act holding them to be time barred. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) however, in the appeals rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Department and held that the appeals were not time barred as they were filed within the prescribed li...
The State of Punjab Vs. Sri R.P. Kapoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All355
ORDERM.P. Saxena, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 C. P. C. by defendant No. 1 against the order dated 12-3-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that Sri R. P. Kapoor, opposite party No. 1, who will hereinafter be referred to as Sri Kapoor, had filed a suit against the State of Punjab and certain others for the recovery of Rs. 10,21,000/- on account of damages arising out of malicious prosecution. He was liable to pay a court-fees of Rs. 76,982.50p. thereon. But he moved an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 C. P. C. for permission to sue as pauper alleging that he was not possessed of sufficient means to defray the said court-fees. The application was moved on 6-4-1963 in the court of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur. The following schedule of property possessed by him was given in the application:1. Unspecified half share of a residential farm house situate at the G. T.Road from Karnal t...
P.L. Kureel Talib Mankab, Vidhan Parishad Vs. Beni Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All362
T.S. Misra, J. 1. The respondents who are the landlords of the premises in question filed an application under Section 7 (B) of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act' on 9-8-1968 against the appellant who is a tenant of flat No. 91 in the said premises alleging that the appellant is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125 per month and that a sum of Rs. 1500 being rent for the period 1-8-1967 to 31-7-1968 and Rs. 331.25 being the property tax for the period from October 1, 1965 to March 31, 1968 were outstanding against him. On a notice being issued to the appellant he filed an objection contending inter alia, that he is a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 75 and not Rs. 125 and that he was being illegally charged a sum of Rs. 50/ per month besides rent of Rs. 75/-. The respondents then paid the requisite court-fee and got their application converted into a suit. The appellant then filed his written statement reiterating his aforesaid aver...
FakhruddIn Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1210
Hari Swabup, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to us for opinion. The questions arose in a criminal revision filed by the accused against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The questions of law referred for our opinion were in the following terms:(1) Whether the transaction in which the possessor of an adulterated food refuses to sell but only permits the sample to be taken and does not take the price therefor amounts to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?(2) Whether for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is essential that the adulterated food must be stored for sale or distributed by way of sale?At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the accused contended that the evidence in the case was not to the effect that the accused had refused to take the payment but was to the effect that the price was not paid by the Food Inspector who coll...
The Plastic Products Ltd., Kanpur Vs. the Additional Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)127
K. B. Asthana, C.J. - Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the Revenue.2. We think the following two questions arise from the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal :-(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(1)(a) was valid and sustainable in law ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in finding that the applicant had failed to disclose the material which justified the reopening of the assessment of the year in question ?3. Let the appellate Tribunal submit a statement of case to this Court.4. The assessee will be entitled to Rs. 100/- as costs.5. No costs are awarded in other connected cases....
Hari NaraIn Vs. Williams and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All441
ORDERM.P. Saxena, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the finding dated 8-7-1972 given by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun on issue No. 9 relating to payment of court-fee.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision application are that the plaintiffs opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of property bearing municipal No. 194, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The defendant No. 1 agreed to purchase this property for a sum of Rs. one lac. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 41,000 remained unpaid. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 41,800 with interest pendente lite and future. The suit was valued at Rs. 41,800 and a sum of Rs. 3,557.50-was paid as court-fee thereon. Later on the plaintiffs got their plaint amended and in the alternative claimed possession over the property in suit. The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the court-fee paid was insuffic...
Registrar of Companies Vs. M.K. Brothers (Private) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas314(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is an application by the Registrar of Companies, U.P., Kanpur, under Section 433{c) and (e) of the Companies Act, 1956. It prays that Messrs. M. K. Brothers (Private) Ltd., Kanpur, be wound tip by the court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Messrs. M. K. Brothers (Private) Ltd., Kanpur, the respondent, was incorporated on June 15, 1950, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its registered office is situate at Silver Oaks, Civil Lines, Kanpur. The main object of the company is to carry on the business of exporters, importers, distributors, wholesale and retail dealers, commission agents of textile fabrics of all kinds as also to buy and sell raw cotton, wool, silk, jute, hemp and other raw materials, etc. The share capital of the company was Rs. 33,000. It was held by three persons who were closely related to each other. Two of the shareholders, namely, Moti Chandra and Kailash Nath, were directors of the company. Moti Chandra was the managing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »