Allahabad Court April 1977 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.
Smt. Ram Peary and ors. Vs. Gauri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978All318
Prem Prakash, J.1. Doubting the correctness of the decision of this Court in Ganga Charan v. Bans Bahadur Singh : AIR1975All25 a learned Single judge of this Court has made this referring order which posits the following: Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is subject to 19 (b) of the New Specific Belief Act.2. Section 19(b) of the Act says that Specific performance of a contract may be enforced against (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.3. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the subsequent purchaser has contended that until the suit of earlier 'contractor' is decreed, the contract to sell and purchase 'between him and the vendor is nothing but an agreement which does not create any interest in immoveable property. The title to the property has validly passed from the vendor and resid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj NaraIn Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: [1988]113ITR163(All)
1. In this application under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the revenue has prayed, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to refer the following two questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the firm under Section 185(1)(a) while exercising his discretion vested in him under Section 185(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the Income-tax Officer did not exercise his discretion under Section 185(5) judiciously, in view of the fact that the assessee had withdrawn his appeal against the Income-tax Officer's order under Section 146 refusing to reopen the assessment made under Section 144?' 2. Sub-section (5) of Section 185 of the Act confers discretion on the Income-tax Officer to refuse to register a firm f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Narayan Tewari.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR163(All)
In this application under sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the revenue has prayed for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to refer the following two questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the firm under section 185(1)(a) while exercising his discretion vested in him under section 185(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the Income-tax Officer did not exercise his discretion under section 85(5) judiciously, in view of the fact that the assessee had withdrawn his appeal against the Income-tax Officers order under section 146 refusing to reopen the assessment made under section 144 ?'Sub-section (5) of section 185 of the Act confers discretion on the Income-tax Officer to refuse to register a firm for any ass...
Smt. Munni Devi and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All386
T.S. Misra, J. 1. A plot of land measuring 22 ft. 6 inches north-south and 30 ft. 10 inches east-west, bounded in the north by the land of Qabul Ahmad and in the south by the house of Suraj Prasad in the east by a metalled road and in the west by the land of Qabul Almiad (at present Rasta and land called Quila), situate in village Ashraf Tola, Qasba Sandila, pergana and Tahsil Sandila shown by letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint is Nazul land owned by State of U. P. and managed by Municipal Board, Sandila. This land was given on lease to Jagannath per lease deed dated 1-12-1919 for building purposes for a period of thirty years on an annual rent of Rs. 3/-with a condition that the right and interest of the lessee in the land in question will come to an end on the expiry of thirty years unless renewed by the State Government on the application of the lessee, his heirs or assigns. Another important term of the lease was that the lessee, his heirs and transferees shall ...
Khadi Gramudyog Trust (Gramodyog) Mandal Vs. Ram Chandraji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All399
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. The only ground upon which the opposite party pressed the suit for ejectment of the tenant (applicant) was non-payment of rent in spite of a notice of demand. The trial court upheld this plea and decreed the suit for ejectment.2. The tenant has come to this court in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act.3. The findings are that the defendant was a tenant of the accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 since 1958. The defendant did not pay the arrears of rent for the period 1st January, 1963 to 31st December, 1970, amounting to Rs. 19,200. A notice demanding payment of this amount as well as to quit the accommodation was served upon the defendant on 9th July, 1973. In spite of it the defendant did not make any payment towards the rent due for the period January, 1963, to December, 1970. During the pendency of the suit the defendant deposited the rent for the period 1st May, 1973 to 28th February, 1975, together with interest and costs etc. totalli...
Rameshwar Dayal Vaish Vs. Mani Lal Tripathi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All534
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for rent and ejectment. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent in brief was that he was the owner and landlord of premises No. 106/115 Ram Park, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur and the appellant was his tenant, in occupation of the first floor of that house on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The respondent served a notice (Ex. 8) dated 7-12-1967 for demand and ejectment on the appellant on 11-12-1967, asking for five months' rent for the period July 1967 to Nov. 1967, which would work out to a sum of Rs. 100/-. According to the plaint allegations the defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises within the time prescribed. Hence, he made himself liable for ejectment and the suit was accordingly filed. 3. The defence of the appellant was that he had remitted the rent by money order for the months of July, August, Sept. and Oct. 1967, in each of the respec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Ram Lal Kishori Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)219
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In these applications under Sub-S. (2) of S. 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue has sought for a direction to the Income Tax Tribunal to refer the following two questions :1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income during the course of original assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58 to 1960-61.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalties of 5,000/- 1,500 and Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 4,000/-imposed under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 1957-58, 58-59 59-60 and 1960-61 respectively.2. The assessee is common in all the four cases and there was a common order passed by the Tribunal for these years. In such reassessment proceedings the assessee agreed to certain amounts being treated as his income during those ye...
Sushil Chandra Vs. Smt. Bhoop Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All441
M.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is a second appeal which has arisen out of a suit wherein theplaintiffs claimed a declaration that the defendant No. 1 Sushil Chandra was not the adopted son of Raghunath Prasad. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Now the defendant No. I has come in this second appeal and in support and opposition thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts are these:2. A pedigree has been set out in the trial Court's judgment and from the same it will be seen that the plaintiffs based their claim as daughter or daughters' issues of one Ram Sahai. It is alleged that Ram Sahai's three sons, namely, Bhoop Ram, Phool Chand and Raghunath Prasad, all remained bachelors in their lives and alter the death of Bhoop Ram and Phool Chand, the remaining son Raghunath Prasad became the sole owner in possession of the property left by Ram Sahai. Raghunath Prasad died...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC407(All)
1. This application by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'), purports to be under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The Commissioner had made an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur, praying that certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, dated 9th October, 1972, be referred to this Court under Section 11 of the Act. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, dismissed that application solely on the ground that the peried of 120 days from the receipt of the application of the Commissioner, specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, had expired and, therefore, he could not refer any question of law to this Court. The application made by the Commissioner was not dismissed on the ground that no question of law arose out of the order of the Jud...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Har Sahai Mal Gulzari Mal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)236
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 Additional Revising Authority was right in holding that the appeal filed by the dealer should have been entertained even when the dealer had not paid tax on cane crushers which had already been held to be taxable by the High Court ?2. In the case of the same assessee for the year 1961-62 a Bench of this court answered the same question in the negative, in favour of the Deptt. and against the assessee (vide Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Har Sahai Mal Gulzari Lal,). Following the above decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee and as follows :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Additional Revising Authority was not right in holding that the appeal filed by the dealer should have been entertained by the Appellate Authority even when the dealer h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »