Allahabad Court March 1976 Judgments
Manohar Lal Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All36
Trivedi, J. 1. Plaintiff - appellant Manohar Lal filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement said to have been executed by Smt Rajeshwari Devi respondent No 1 on 16-4-1967 (Ext. 14) in favour of appellant Manohar Lal promising to sell certain land for Rs. 2,000. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiff Manohar Lal had paid Rs. 1,000 to Smt Rajeshwari Devi by way of earnest money and she promised to transfer the land in appellant's favour after obtaining a bhumidhari Sanad for the land. It was alleged in the plaint that respondent No. 1 in spite of several demands failed to execute the sale deed and, therefore, a decree for specific performance was prayed for.2. The defence of defendant No. 1 Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was that she never executed an agreement to sell land in favour of plaintiff Manohar Lal and that by exercise of fraud he had obtained her thumb impression on certain papers. She denied having received Rs. 1,000 as earnest money. The trial c...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rashid and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All206
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two special appeals have been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated February 12, 1976, dismissing the writ petition jointly filed by the appellants in these two special appeals.2. The appellants along with certain other persons applied for the grant of stage carriage permits on Meerut-Rohta-Binauli-Baraut route. It appears that there were eight vacancies on the route for which permits were to be granted. By its order dated October 27/ 28/29, 1971, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, granted eight permits to persons other than the appellants. This order was challenged by the appellants in appeal. During the pendency of the appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 25 of 1975) was passed whereby a new section being Section 43-A was inserted. In the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant portion of the said Section 43-A reads:--'43-A. Power...
Tag this Judgment!Bindbasni and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1660
M. Murtaza Husain, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1975 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti whereby he dismissed a revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11th April 1975 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Basti, under Section 107/111, Cr. P.C. (new). Through that order the learned Magistrate expressed his satisfaction to the effect that there was apprehension of breach of peace on behalf of the revisionist and he directed a notice to be issued to the revisionist to show cause as to why should they not be bound down.2. This revision was admitted by Hon'ble H. N. Kapoor, J. on 22nd December, 1975. The learned Judge was doubtful about the maintainability of this revision because in his opinion the impugned order passed by the Magistrate was an 'interlocutory order' as contemplated by Section 397(2), Cr. P. C, (New) whereby no court of revision could interfere with it. A Single Judge decision of this Court in Trijugi Nar...
Tag this Judgment!Het Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ117
G.D. Srivastava, J.1. By his order dated 8-8-1975 Hon. H.N. Seth, J. has referred the following question to a Division Bench:Whether the proceedings under Section 107(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure get vitiated merely because while issuing process under Section 107(1) the Magistrate acts upon the statement of a party and its witness, purporting to have been recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C.The facts leading to this reference may be briefly stated thus : One Karan Singh moved an application under Section 107/ 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Het Ram and others in which he alleged that the opposite parties had formed a group against him and had threatened him with violence and therefore there was likelihood of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate called for a report from the police and the report submitted by the police was that there was no such apprehension. Thereupon Karan Singh came forward with the allegation that the report of the police was incorrect, and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ412
K.N. Seth, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for opinion:Can benefit of the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1053(?) or the benefit of Section 260, Cr.P.C. (New) be allowed to an accused who is found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. XXXVII of 1954), to which the proviso to Section 16 of the Act does not apply?2. It appears from the referring order that the accused Badan Singh was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he was found keeping exposed for sale Haldi which was 100 per cent insect infected. The article was thus adulterated within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It was not disputed that the proviso to Section 16 of the Act was not attracted and as such he was liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than six months and with fine not less than Rs. 1,000/-. H.N. Kapoor, J. apparently found it dif...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Board, Azamgarh and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All484
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner company constructed a textile factory in the district of Azamgarh in the year 1968-69. According to the petitioner, the factory falls outside the limits of the Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan, but its office and gate fall within the limits of the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board has imposed octroi tax on certain articles including cotton, in the year 1950. The petitioner was granted an exemption from the payment of octroi duty on cotton imported by it for its factory for a period of five years. After the expiry of these five years, the petitioner again applied for exemption but exemption was refused. The Municipal Board started demanding octroi duty from the petitioner. The imposition of octroi duty and the liability of the petitioner to pay the same have been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. Some of the grounds, on which they are challenged, are-1. That the procedure prescribed for the imposition of taxes by Municipal Boards u...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ram NaraIn Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR965(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The assessee was assessed to wealth-tax as an individual for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The accounting years followed by the assessee were Ram Navmi years. No voluntary returns of wealth were filed by him as required under Section 14(1) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notice under Section 17 of the Act calling for return of net wealth for the assessment years which were served on the assessee on 26th of October, 1969. The returns were filed on 18th September, 1970. The assessments were completed on 30th January, 1971, and the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act for delay in filing the returns. The returns of wealth filed were belated. Against the notice under Section 18(1)(a) dated 30th January, 1971, the assessee filed an application under Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act for waiver of penalty before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow, which was rejected by him. After th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Maunath Bhanjan, Distt : Azamgarh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)150
G. C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner company constructed textile factory in the district of Azamgarh in the year 1968-69. According to the petitioner, the factory falls outside the limits of the Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan, but its office and gate fall within the limits of the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board had imposed octroi tax on certain articles, including cotton, in the year 1950. The petitioner was granted an exemption from the payment of octroi duty on cotton imported by it for its factory for a period of five years. After the expiry of these five years, the petitioner again applied for exemption but exemption was refused. The Municipal Board started demanding octroi duty from the petitioner. The imposition of octroi duty and the liability of the petitioner to pay the same have been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. Some of the grounds, on which they are challenged, are -2. That the procedure prescribed for the imposition of taxes by municipal boards u...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad, Hindu Undivided Family, Resident of M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)149
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition claiming a relief for mandamus directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes to decide its representation made under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. A prayer has also been made that till not frame final assessment in the case of the assessee. At the time of hearing. Dr. R. R. Misra counsel for the assessee gave up the second relief and pressed the petitions only as respects the first relief. A perusal of the petition clearly established that through the assessee had made representation under section 132(11) of the Act and sent various reminders for an early decision of the same, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has not decided these representations. A considerable time has elapsed from the making of the representation. No good appears for the delay in disposing of the representation.2. We accordingly allow the petition to the extent that respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Hansraj Gupta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0169A
ORDERT. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi, praying that the Income-tax Tribunal be required to state the case and refer the following question stated to arise out of the order of the said Tribunal, dated 4th February, 1975, in Income-tax Appeal No. 870 of 1972-73 relating to the assessment year 1965-66 :-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that no penalty was leviable of the assessee company under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereby cancelling the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- imposed by the I.A.C.2. The assessee is M/s. Hansraj Gupta & Co. (P) Ltd. It filed a return showing its income assessment Rs. 23,774/-. But, the Income-Tax Officer made several additions on account of (a) expenses claimed by the assessee assessment bad debts, repairs and travelling expenses (b) unex...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »