Allahabad Court July 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.
Ram Pal Singh Vs. Bhagelu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ462
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This reference has been made by the 1st Temporary Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, by his order dated 21-5-1973, in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 1972, making a recommendation to this Court that the order of the Magistrate dated 15-7-1972, ordering the application for starting proceedings under Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other relevant papers, the dispute was of a civil nature and it was not a fit case for taking proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present revision is moved on an application for taking proceedings against the opposite parties under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as there was dispute over certain land and there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate had called for the report of the Tahsildar and the Naib Tahesildar had submitted a report and his report was that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate was obviously not satisfied by ...
U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and anr. Vs. Smt. Hasan Jehan Begum a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All18
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs (hereinafter referred as the Waqfs Board) against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The petitioner Smt. Hasan Jehan Begum had filed the writ petition challenging certain acts of the Waqfs Board. That petition was allowed by the learned single Judge partly. 2. The petitioner is the Mutawalliof the two Waqfs created in 1929 and1930 and subsequently alleged to be consolidated by another deed in 1943. Thewaqif purported to create Waqf-Alal-Aulad and also to dedicate the propertyunder the Muslim Law for purposes religious, pious and charitable. Under theWaqfs deed there is a specific amountallotted to those religious, pious and charitable purposes and the remainder has togo to the beneficiaries, that is to say, thedescendants of the waqif. Ultimately theentire property has to go for the benefitof religious, pious and charitable purposes provided that no one survives in theline of the descendants ...
Math Sauna and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All115
K.N. Seth, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants obtained a decree against the defendant in respect of certain properties situate in village Amauli. In respect of certain other reliefs, however, the suit was decided against the plaintiffs. Both the parties preferred appeals to this Court. The defendant appealed against that part of the decree which held that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession over the properties at Amauli. The plaintiffs' appeal was directed against the decree that plaintiff No. 3 was not the de jure Mahant but only the de facto Mahant. The appeal filed by the defendant (First Appeal No. 80 of 1964) was allowed and it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the properties of Amauli specified as 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'E' in the Schedule attached to the plaint. Allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs it was declared that plaintiff-No. 3 was both de jure and de facto Mahant of Math Sauna (plaintiff No. 1).2. During the pendency of the defendant's appeal (F. A. No. 80 ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shahid HusaIn Rakesh Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC520(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, was legally justified in his view that the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not apply unless return of turnover as required by Section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been furnished ?2. The assessee carried on business of manufacture and sale of bricks. It did not secure any registration nor did it furnish any return of turnover as required under Section 7 of the Act. It was brought on record that in consequence of a survey a large number of books of account of the assessee for 1967-68 till the date of survey were seized. The Sales Tax Officer on the basis of the survey passed an order to the best of his judgment. Thereafter a notice under Section 15-A(1)(b) of the Act was issued and a penalty was imposed. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed, ag...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mathura Das Ram Saran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC71(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of yarn in dispute was taxable under Notification No. 2934/X-902 dated 1st August, 1958 2. The assessee, a dealer in Moradabad, was holding stocks of yarn on 1st August, 1958. Admittedly, yarn was taxable at single point before 1st August, 1958. It was taxable either in the hands of importers or the manufacturers. The State Government issued a notification on 1st August, 1958, as a result of which, the turnover in respect of cotton yarn became taxable at the point of sale by the dealer to the consumer. The Judge (Revisions) has recorded a finding that the stock of cotton yarn, which was with the assessee, was sold by it to the consumer. He was of the view that it was not taxable and the notification dated 1st August, 1958, did not alter the position as rights had accrued to the assessee prior to the issue of the notification. H...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/S. Shahid HusaIn Rakesh Kumar.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)276
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Bareilly was legally justified in his view that the provisions of sec. 15-A (1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, could not apply unless returns of turnover as required by section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been furnished ?The assessee carried on business of manufacture and sale of bricks. It did not secure any registration nor did it furnish any return to turnover as required under sec. 7 of the Act. It was brought on record as the assessee in consequence of a survey when a large number of books of account for 1967-68 till the date of survey were seized. The Sales Tax Officer on the basis of the survey passed an order to the best of his judgment. Thereafter a notice under section 15-A (1)(b) of the Act was issued and a penalty was imposed. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed against w...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Mathura Das Ram Saran Das.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0278A
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the turnover of yarn in dispute was taxable under Notification No. 2934/X902 dated 1-8-1958 ?'The assessee a dealer in Moradabad was holding stocks of yarn on 1-8-1958. Admittedly yarn was taxable at single point before 1-8-58. It was taxable either in the hands of importers or the manufactures. The State Government issued a Notification on 1st August 1958 as a result of which the turnover in respect of cotton yarn became taxable at the point of sale by the dealer to consumer. The Judge Revision has recorded a finding that the stock of cotton yarn which was with the assessee was sold by it to the consumer. He was of the view that it was taxable and the Notification dated 1-8-58 did not alter the position as rights had accrued to the assessee prior to the issue of the Notification. He drew support for his view from the decision given by the ...
M/S. Saeed Ahmad Sareef Ahmad, Kanpur Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)279
R. M. Sahai, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business carried on in the name of Habib Oil Industrial Corporation belonged to the assessee ?'The assessee a registered partnership firm consisted of three partners the mother and her two sons-Mist. Sagiran Bibi, Saeed Ahmad and Sareef Ahmad. It carried on the business of edible oil under the name and style of M/s. Saeed Ahmad Sarif Ahmad. A plot of land at Jajmau stood registered in the name of Sharif Ahmad but the investment in the construction of the factory building on the said plot and the installation of the machinery for an oil mill came initially from the assessee firm. The cost of the construction and the machinery later on debited to the two male partners of the firm, namely, Saeed Ahmad and Sareef Ahmad in e...
Kali Charan and anr. Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All56
Sinha, J.1. A learned single Judge while dealing with Writ Petitions Nos. 1210 of 1972 and 1211 of 1972, arising out of consolidation matter, has referred the following questions to be answered by a Division Bench :1. Whether in a suit under Section 229-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition end Land Reforms Act instituted before the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 18 of 1956 a declaration that the defendant was a sirdar could be granted?2. If such a declaration could not be granted, but in order to record a finding that the defendant was not an asami an incidental finding was recorded that he was actually a sirdar, will such a finding operate as res judicata in a subsequent case where the status of the said defendant as sirdar is denied before a court or an authority competent to decide an issue about sirdari rights?' The circumstances under which the two questions arose have been mentioned at length in the referring order. That apart, it is not necessary for us to refer to those facts...
Muncipal Board, Mainpuri Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ112
Chandra Prakash, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Main-puri against the order dated 22-8-1972 of Sri S.N. Gupta, acquitting Raja Ram respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. Respondent Raja Ram was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the complaint of the Food Inspector B.N. Lal. The allegations in the complaint were that the respondent on 25-11-1971 at about 9-30 A.M. was found exposing adulterated she-buffalo milk for sale at his shop at Agra Road in Mainpuri town, The complaint was dated 24-2-1972 and reached the court below on 6-5-1972. The respondent was summoned for 5-6-1972. On that date the respondent was bailed out end he was supplied copies of the documents on which the prosecution relied. June 19, 1972 was then fixed for evidence in the case. On that date B.N. Lal, Food Inspector was examined under Section 256, Cri.P.C. and the case was adjourned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »