Allahabad Court March 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.
Master Shivaraj Singh Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All68
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The appellant is the landlord of an accommodation situated at Gandhi Bazzar in the Town Area of Haldaur, in the district of Bijnor. The respondent No. V is the tenant in the accommodation. The appellant made an application under Section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for premission to file a suit for ejectment against the respondent No. 1. The permission prayed for was granted by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. Against that order a revision was filed by respondent No. 1 which was allowed by the Commissioner. The matter was taken up to the State Government by the appellant by means of a representation and the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7-F of the Act set aside the order of the Commissioner and granted the permission prayed for by its order dated March 22, 1971. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the State Governme...
Pulloo and anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All343
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two appeals raise similar questions and are, therefore, being decided by a common judgment.2. Special Appeal No. 257 of 1971 has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants with a prayer to quash the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was dismissed. The appellants claim to be tenure-holders of certain agricultural land. The contesting respondents on the other hand claim to have acquired adhivasi and thereafter sirdari rights in the said land. From a perusal of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 3rd June, 1966, Annexure 'B' to the writ petition, it appears that in the Khasras of 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli Sri Narain and others were recorded as mortgagors, Murat Singh and others were recorded as mortgagees and Ram Harakh, father of respondents 4 and 5, was recorded in the column of sub-tenant. Sri Narain and others had...
Municipal Board, Faizabad Vs. Edward Medical Hall, Faizabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All349
T.S. Misra, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with and checking the plaintiffs from carrying drugs and medicines etc., from railway station Faizabad to any other place within Faizabad Municipality and in the alternative to restrain the defendants from charging octroi tax at a rate higher than 1.25 nP. permaund on patent medicines manufactured in India.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground inter alia that it was bad for want of notice under Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act that none of the medicines brought by the plaintiffs was covered by Serial No. 73 but were covered by Serial No. 71 of the Schedule for non-refundable octroi and the duty charged was correct. At the trial of the suit it was also urged by the defendant that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.2-A. The trial Court held that no notice was necessary to be given under Section 326 of the Municipalities Act and that the Civi...
M/S. Mohammad Ayub and Sons, Varanasi Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)144
R. M. Sahai, J. - The assessees turnover of glass-sheets was assessed at 7% under section 3A of U.P. Sales Tax Act (as it stood before amendment) treating it as glass-ware. The appeal and revision were dismissed. An application under section 11(1) was filed and apart from the question that has been called under section 11(4) the assessee wanted to refer one question which is quoted below :'Whether in view of above facts and evidence placed before him the learned Revising Authority was justified in holding that the glass sheets are semi finished or finished goods fall in the category of glass wares.'The applications was dismissed and it was observed :'I think having regard to clear observation made in the case of our own High Court noted above glass sheets could not be considered a raw material but being salable as such fell in the category of finished goods and were liable to tax as glass wares. The law is clear on the point and hence I do not think in respect of the rate of taxability...
Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and anr. Vs. M/S. Shri Ram Mahadeo Prasad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)196
G. C. Mathur, J. - The Municipal Board, Kanpur, had been levying, from before coming into force of the Constitution, terminal tax upon the import or export of certain commodities, at specified rates. From 1-1-1960, the Municipal Board was replaced by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. By a notification dated January 15, 1960, published in the U.P. Gazette dated January 16, 1960, the Nagar Mahapalika enhanced the refer of terminal tax. On May 18, 1970, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the notification enhancing the rates of terminal tax on the ground that after the coming into force of the Constitution it was no longer permissible for the Nagar Mahapalika to impose terminal tax, as under the Constitution the jurisdiction to levy this tax had been given to the Union of Indian. The writ petition was allowed by Gulati, J. on October 11, 1971. The operative part of his judgment reads thus :-'The petitioner has also prayed for a refund. There is no doubt that the pet...
Ramesh Chand Bose Vs. Gopeshwar Pd. Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All38
Hari Swarup, J.1. These two appeals have been referred to us as they raised certain questions of law on which there is a difference of opinion in different judgments of this court as well as of other High Courts. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals in the two cases are the following:--The appellant in either case was defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for his ejectment and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was the tenant and his tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there was a valid permission from the District Magistrate to institute the suit under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The defendant in either case denied the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy and also the permission granted under Section 3 of the Act. According to the defendant the tenancy had come down from the ancesto...
Badshah Ali Vs. Commissioner Lucknow Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All403
Satish Chandra, J.1. One Zulfikhar Hussain was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. Fasih Uddin, respondent No. 3, the landlord applied for and obtained permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for filing a suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The permission was granted on the ground that the need of the landlord for using the accommodation for his personal purposes was genuine. This permission was granted on 20th November, 1959. The landlord, however, did not file any suit; but it appears that after some years the tenant vacated the house whereafter Badshah All, the present appellant, came in possession of the house. He, on 15th July 1969, moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the house in question in his favour. He supplemented this application by another one filed on 5th August, 1969. In these proceedings the erstwhile tenant Zulfikhar Husain filed an application intimating that he ...
The Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs. Rana Sheo Ambar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All447
T.S. Misra, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Prem Prakash, I agree with the conclusions reached by him but I would like to add something on the question of interlocutory injunction.2. The grant of an interlocutory injunction is a remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. When an application for interlocutory injunction is made upon contested facts the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it or both is uncertain end will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. It is with a view to mitigate the risk of injunction to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that a practice has arisen to grant him relief by way of temporary injunction. The object seems to be to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately comp...
M/S. Ram Lal vs. C.I.T., U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)147
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following three questions have been referred for our opinion :-'1. Whether Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules violates or transgresses the power given to the Rule making authority under section 184(7) ?2. If the reply to question No. (1) is in the negative, whether the finding of the appellate Tribunal that the appellant was not entitled to continuation of registration under sec. 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is based on a correct and sound interpretation of Rule 24 of Income-tax Rules ?3. Whether in the case of a registered firm, sec. 75 acts as a bar against the carry forward of its losses according to section 72, 73 and 74 in the determination of tax in its own assessment ?'The assessee a firm of four partners carried on money lending and cloth manufacturing business. It was assessed as a registered firm till the assessment year 1961-62. For the assessment year 1962-63 a declaration under section 184(7) was filed for continuation of registration. This was sig...
Baleshwar Prasad Srivastava Vs. Smt. Sita Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All338
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 3-9-1974 allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 filed under Section 22 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly stated as 'the new Act'). Respondent No. 1 is, admittedly, the owner of house No. 68. Khuldabad Allahabad. The upper portion of this house was in the tenancy of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 of the new Act for release of the portion in occupation of the petitioner on the ground that the same was required by her for her use and occupation. The application was contested by the petitioner and the claim of respondent No. 1 that her need was bona fide was denied. The petitioner alleged that he was living in the accommodation in the dispute since 1951 and as he did not have any alternative accommodation available to him he would su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »