Allahabad Court January 1977 Judgments
Bhuwal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All488
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this Bench for its opinion :1. Whether the first proviso to Clause 14 of the U, P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution relating to the constitution and organization of the High Courts (namely, Articles 214, 230, 231) and the Scheme contemplated therein, and is saved by Article 226 or Article 372 or any other Article of the Constitution after its enforcement on 26-1-1950? 2. Whether the jurisdiction and power of the Allahabad High Court, conferred on the Judges sitting at Lucknow under Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, include the jurisdiction and power under Article 226 of the Constitution ?Since the constitutionality of an Order issued by the Governor General was in question, notice was issued to the learned Attorney General of India. Notices were also issued to the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and to the Oudh Bar Associ...
Tag this Judgment!Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1977
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT391(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the short question that arises for detemination is whether the cost of packing dry cell batteries should be treated as a part of the assessable value of those goods for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty.2. The petitioner is common in these three petitions. It is a public limited company engaged in manufacture, inter alia, of dry cell batteries. While approving the wholesale price list of the petitioner, the Assistant Collector had accepted the claim of the petitioner that the cost of packing materials in which dry cell batteries are packed, should be excluded in determining the assessable value of those goods for levy of excise duty. But, later he initiated proceedings under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to recover extra excise duty representing the cost of packing dry cell batteries and raised additional demands on the petitioner. His decision was affirmed by the Deputy Collector, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan MeakIn Brerweies Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)181
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners are distillers manufacturing alcoholic liquors and rectified spirit. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitutions, they have challenged the levy of the duty under the nomenclature export duty on Indian made foreign liquors, country spirits, beer and rectified spirits levied at the point of export from Uttar Pradesh to other States and Union Territories in India. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Ss. 28 and 29 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) levying such duty on such liquors and rectified spirit exported from Uttar Pradesh to other States and Union Territories.2. The petitioners case is briefly as follows : Before the commencement of the Constitution, the State of Uttar Pradesh was levying a duty on export of Indian made foreign liquors country spirit and beer at very low rates. This duty was levied to meet the expenditu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ram Prakash and Sons and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)141
R. M. Sahai, J. :- In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the common question that arises for determination, is the rate at which aluminium wares are subject to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The petitioners are dealers in aluminium wares. Their case is that the rate at which sales tax is leviable on aluminium wares is only 31/2 per cent, whereas the sales tax authorities have been demanding from them sales tax at 7 per cent on aluminium wares.On behalf of the Sales Tax authorities the learned Standing Counsel contended that sales tax is leviable on aluminium wares at 7 per cent.3. In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act, the course of amendments thereof and the relevant notifications under the Act.The relevant portions of S. 3 of the Act, as it stood on 5-4-1961, read as follows :-'3. Liability of tax under the Act : (1) Subject to the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Atma Ram Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All445
Hari Swarup, J.1. This application purports to be an application for 'reviewing, correcting and amending' the opinion given by the Full Bench on a question of law referred to it by a learned single Judge. It has been made 'under Section 151/152 read with Order 47 Rule 1 C. P. C.'2. In a revision filed Under Section 115 CPC the learned single Judge Hearing the revision referred for the opinion of a larger bench the following question of law:'Is the plaintiffs suit (No. 16 of 73) maintainable having regard to the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code?'A Bench of five Judges was constituted and it answered the question in the affirmative. It is in respect of the opinion of the Full Bench that the present application has been moved.3. The application was directed to he listed before Division Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. A preliminary objection has been raised to the consideration of this application by the Division Bench on the ground that the opinion sought to...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)0154A
R. M. SAHAI, J. - The petitioner is the proprietor of the Fir, namely, M/s. Chandrapal Birbhan Singh and carries on manufacturing of khansari sugar. The petitioner exercised option under the provision to S. 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase) Tax Act, 1961 and agreed to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13-A. in Form XIII, as provided under Rule 13-A, the petitioner declared that his unit had got two power crushers of the size of 11' X 14'.2. This petition has been filed against a demand notice dated 6th July, 1975 for payment of arrears of purchase tax due of the assessment year 1974-75. It has been urged by the petitioner that the demand is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner operated only one of the crushers whereas the amount demanded is for the two crushers regarding which the petitioner had made a declaration.3. It is admitted that the petitioner filed an earlier writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 732 (Tax) of 1975 (decided on 26.7.76). This petit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Mansoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All239
M.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, C.P.C. The brief facts are these: The house in dispute was owned by one Abdul Ghani and the plaintiff-appellant, Mohd. Mustafa purchased it on 10th June, 1959. The house was in the tenancy of one Ghissu who was admittedly dead on 10th June, 1959 when the house was purchased by the plaintiff. Ghissu's four sons and his widow were in possession ofthe house. They were impleaded as the five defendants in the suit. The plaintiff, while purchasing the said property on 10th June, 1959, had also obtained the right to realize certain arrears of rent which were said to be due to the landlord from the tenants. On 14-9-1959 the plaintiff sent a notice addressed to the four sons of Ghissu requiring them to pay arrears of rent and determining their tenancy. The said defendants, however, neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff filed original suit No. 44 of 1960 against the said four sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidh Nath Shukla and ors. Vs. Smt. Roop Rani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All286
M.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants. The trial court decreed the suit against all the defendants. The lower appellate court, however, allowed the appeal filed by some of the defendants and modified the decree. The suit remained decreed against some of the defendants but was dismissed against the other defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have now come up in the instant second appeal and their contention is that the decree passed by the lower appellate court should be set aside and that of the trial court be restored. 2. The brief facts are these:-- 3. The plaintiffs alleged that in between the two lines shown by letters AB and MN in the site plan annexed to the plaint and to the north of K L and A G there had always been an open Sehan which was used by them and other residents of the Mohalla as a common Sehan for holding Panchayats, for the stay of the Barate and for feeding marriage parties and for various other purposes. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Channoo Lal Damodar Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR759(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. In these five connected references the question of law that has been referred for our opinion is whether the receipts on account of mandir, gaushala and dharmada were trading receipts in the hand of the assessee.2. The assessee carries on the business of commission agency. It charged dharmada at the rate of one anna per 100 rupees, mandir charges at the rate of 1/2 old paisa per bag and gaushala at the rate of 2 old paise per 100 rupees from all its constituents to whom the goods were sold. The assessee claimed that the receipts under these heads were exempt because they had to be spent for the specific purposes for which they were realised from the constituents. The Income-tax Officer, however, disallowed this claim and brought the amounts realised under these heads to tax. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying upon a decision of this court in Agra Bullion Exchange v. Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hoshiari Devi Vs. Tajvir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All295
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The plaintiff also claimed joint possession in case defendants 1 to 3 were found to be in such possession. The brief facts are these:--One Jaswant Singh was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. He died in February, 1955 leaving the plaintiff, widow of a pre-deceased son and two sons namely, Sita Rani and Her Bhajan Singh (defendants 4 and 5 respectively) as his heirs and as such the three heirs inherited the property left by the deceased Jaswant Singh. The three heirs had equal shares in such property. The plaintiff alleged that she filed a suit for declaration in the revenue court in 1960. Necessity for such suit arose as she found that defendants 4 and 5, the two sons of Jaswant Singh. got their sole names mutated in the revenue records. The said suit in the revenue court was, however, stayed on account of consolidation proceedings. During the stay of the said suit defendants 4 and 5 s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »