Allahabad Court August 1976 Judgments
Deviprasad Gupta Vs. Abdul Khaliq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All112
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated May 12, 1976 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5.2. Gopiganj Town, District Varanasi, has a town area consisting of ten members including a Chairman. At the general election held in 1971, Devi Prasad Gupta the appellant, Abdul Khaliq, Jamuna Prasad, Basarat Ali, Mahadeo and Raja Ram respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and Mewa, Genda Lal and Mata Din, who were arrayed respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in the writ petition, were elected as members of the Town Area Committee. Panna Lal Gupta, respondent No. 8 of the writ petition was elected as its Chairman. The term of office of the members and the Chairman under Section 6 read with Section 8-A of the Town Areas Act (briefly stated as, the Act) is four years. This term of four years can however, be extended under Section 6 of the Act from time to time by the State Government subject to the condition that the total extension doe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saharanpur Electric Supply Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR545(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') (shortly referred to as the Tribunal) has referred to this court the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation to be allowed for the assessment year 1963-64 in respect of the assets acquired by the assessee before April 1, 1961, should be determined by reference to the written down value as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1922, or by reference to the written down value as determined in accordance with Sections 43(1) and 43(6) of the Act of 1961 ?'2. The material facts are these: The respondent-assessee is a limited company which was running an electricity supply undertaking at Saharanpur. The reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the corresponding previous year being the year ending on March 31, 1963. The controversy relates to the depreciation on the service li...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Saran Anoop Saran Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC89(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra :Whether, on the facts found, the assessee could be held to be a dealer as defined by the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these : The assessee claimed to be a mere weighman (taula) of foodgrains and oil-seeds for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessing authority rejected his claim and held him to be a commission agent against which the assessee went in appeal and revision, but he was not successful.3. The definition of 'dealer' in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it stood in the year 1959-60, reads as follows :Section 2. (c) 'dealer' means any person or association of persons carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in Uttar Pradesh, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or Hindu joint family and any society, club or association, which sells goods to its members and also includes any department of the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Anand Saran Anoop Saran Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)287
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred by the Additional Judge (Revision), Sales Tax, Agra :-'Whether on the facts found the assessee could be held to be the dealer as defined by the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these : The assessee claimed to be a mere weighmen (Taula) of foodgrains and oilseeds for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessing authority rejecting his claim and held him to be a Commission Agent against which the assessee went in an appeal and revision but he was not successful.3. The definition of dealer in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it stood in the year 1959-60 reads as follows :-'Sec. 2 (c)(c) dealer means any person or association of person carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in Uttar Pradesh whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or Hindu joint family and any society, club or association, which sells goods to its members and also includes any Department of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Ram Audan Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR712(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (shortly called 'the Tribunal'), has referred to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (shortly called ' the Act'), the following questions of law : '1. Whether, in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to prove the source of cash credits standing in the name of Daya Shanker and Sundera Devi, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of Daya Shanker and Sundera Devi recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, if not, whether the appellate order is vitiated because of non-consideration of that evidence 2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the evidence of DayaShanker and Sundera Devi, if recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, could be ignored from consideration on the ground that theIncome-tax Officer had not been given an opportunity to rebut thatevidence ?' 2. Shri Mahajan, the learned counsel for the assessee, conte...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. Lala Rajendra Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ365
ORDERM.P. Saxena, J.1. This civil contempt petition arises out of an order dated 3-5-1973 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7898 of 1972. It may be stated here that notices of it have not been issued so far and the question is whether it should be done or not. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter at great length it is necessary to narrate the circumstances in which this application has been moved.2. The appellant was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer in M/s. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Shamli (hereinafter called the Mill) sometime in the year 1952 and was confirmed in 1953. According to him, he risked the displeasure of the Management of the mill with the result that on 28-6-1969 the Management terminated his services. Approval of the Commissioner was also obtained on 24-1-1969. Feeling aggrieved by this order the applicant preferred an appeal before the State of U.P. but unsuccessfully. Against this order of rejection by the State Government, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1298
S.K. Kaul, J.1. This Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court who doubted the correctness of the proposition of law laid down by B. M. Lall, J. in the case of Bis-hambhar Rai v. State : AIR1953All199 in respect of interpretation of the language of the explanation appended to Section 517 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Before entering into the question referred to this Bench we would first of all look to the facts giving rise to this reference.3. Ram Chandra prosecuted opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 for an offence punishable Under Section 395, I. P. C. for forcibly cutting and looting of certain crops. The police seized the crop from the threshing floor of opposite parties 2 to 11 and entrusted the same in the custody of Ram Chandra himself. Opposite Parties 2 to 11 stood trial Under Section 395 and ultimately the trial resulted in their acquittal. The trial Court, however, did not make an order about disposal of the seized crop. The...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Singh and Others Vs. the Town Area Committee and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)300
G. C. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the imposition of toll tax in the Town Area of Babugarh, District Meerut. The imposition was challenged only on one ground, namely, that the notification under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 15-B of the Town Area Act, 1914, was not published by the Commissioner, who was the Prescribed Authority, but by the District Magistrate. The learned Single Judge held that the Commissioner was not the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the District Magistrate was empowered to publish the notification. He further held that the defect, if any, was inconsequential and did not call for striking down of the imposition.2. Admittedly, all the essential steps for the imposition of toll tax had been taken in the present case by appropriate authorities. This means that the proposals were duly framed by the Town Area Committee, that they were sanctioned by the appropria...
Tag this Judgment!Gyasa Vs. Smt. Risalo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All156
K.N. Seth, J.1. The appellant's suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of the land was decreed. The decree directed that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 4,000/- in Court within two months whereafter the defendant shall execute the sale deed of the property in question in favour of the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff may get the same done through Court. The decree holder deposited the amount in Court. As the judgment debtor failed to execute the requisite sale deed it was got executed through Court. In execution of the decree arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison, attachment of the judgment-debtor's entire property and possession over the property covered by the sale deed were claimed'. The judgment debtor filed objections and resisted her arrest and detention in civil prison and attachment of her property and also the prayer for delivery of possession. The execution Court accepted the objection that the decree holder was not entitled to posses...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. the Second Addl. District Judge, Meerut and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All552
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Parmeshwari Devi widow of Dilawar Singh is the owner of Kothi No. 182, Prempuri Railway Road, Meerut which comprises of two separate and distinct residential accommodations. One such accommodation is the main bungalow which has been let out for the office of District Agricultural Officer, Meerut on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The other accommodation consists of four rooms in a row each of 19' X 16' dimension with an attached latrine and bathroom. The two residential accommodations are separated by a lane 10' in width. The petitioner claims to be living in three out of four rooms aforesaid along with ten other members of her family. The 4th room has been let out to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The tenancy of respondent No. 3 was terminated by the petitioner by a notice dated 25-1-1972. In the compound of the Kothi mentioned above, there was a vacant piece of land measuring 65 sq. yards. It has been gifted by the petitioner b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »