Allahabad Court May 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Laxmipat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR272(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these three references under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following common question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' ):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Rules 1C and ID introduced by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Rules, 1967, by notification dated October 6, 1967, do not have any retrospective effect and could not be applied for the valuation of the unquoted shares for the assessment years in question as the relevant valuation dates thereof preceded October 6, 1967?'2. Each of these references relates to a separate assessee, but in respect of the same assessment years, i.e., 1965-66 and 1966-67. In each of these cases the assessee had valued for the purpose of wealth-tax certain shares which had not been quoted in the stock exchange,...
Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978All12
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as amended by Act of 1972 ended in its discharge by the Appellate Court on 24th December 1974. Similar notice under Section 10 (2) was issued on 30th Sept. 1975 which was hotly contested both on the ground of jurisdiction and merits but with no success, even, in appeal. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th Oct. 1976 and 30th June 1976 passed by the Appellate Court and the prescribed Authority in proceedings started by the second notice dated 30th Sept. 1975.2. The challenge to the order is based on non-applicability of Section 13-A of the Act conclusiveness of the earlier judgment and lack of jurisdiction of the prescribed Authority. The dispute in this petition is mainly confined to the area of the petitioner declared surplus by the subordinate authorities on the ground that it was covered by a sale-deed executed on 29th Dec. 1971. This was not in the knowledge...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut and anr. Vs. the Regiona ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All440
K.N. Singh, J. This petition is directed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 30th May, 1973, refusing to grant permit to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, under Section 68-F (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. At the outset of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition stands abated tinder Section 58 (2) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, inasmuch as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision under Section 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Since no revision was preferred and the present writ petition was filed, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings. On behalf of the petitioner, it was asserted that the remedy of appeal or revision was not available to the petitioner in view of Section 68-F (3) of the Act Section 68-F (3) lays down that no appeal shall lie against any acti...
Ram Krishna and ors. Vs. Yunus and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ52
ORDERS. Malik, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying that the order dated 9-6-1976 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, directing the police to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint Under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC and either to submit a charge-sheet or a final report, be quashed.2. The relevant facts are that Yens, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Magistrate concerned making allegations which make out an offence punishable Under Section 395 of the IPC The learned Magistrate instead of proceeding with the case himself after taking cognizance thereof passed the impugned order Under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC directing the police to investigate it as already mentioned.3. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that the learned Magistrate acted illegally as he had no option but to take cognizance of the case in view of the language of Section 190 of the Cr.PC In support of this view the attention of the Court, was drawn ...
Zakir and anr. Vs. Mohammad HussaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All476
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal by plaintiff arises out of a suit filed for ejectment of the defendants from the premises in question and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the landlord of the house and alleged that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 were his tenants therein at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. The plaintiff filed an application for permission to file a suit, of eviction of the defendants. That application was opposed by the defendants a, 2 and 3 was allowed on 20-7-1968. A revision filed against that order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. The plaintiff, after obtaining the requisite permission, sent a notice to defendants 1 to 3 determining their tenancy. That notice was despatched by post under registered cover on 30-7-1968 which, according to the plaintiff, was refused by the said defendants and was, therefore, returned to the plaintiff as refused. The plaintiff, thereafter gave another notice dated 27-8-68 to th...
ElgIn Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR287(All)
Chandrashekhar, C.J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notices dated March 22, 1972 (annexures Nos. 1 to 3 to the writ petition), issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These notices relate to the assessment years 1964-65, 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1971-72.2. The learned standing counsel did not dispute that the notice relating to the assessment year 1970-71 has become infructuous. Hence, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of this notice.3. The notice issued for the assessment year 1964-65 is under Clause (a) of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued for the remaining years are under Clause (b) of that section.4. We shall first examine the validity of the notice issued under Clause (a) of Section 147 of the Act. The learned standing counsel has produced before us the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer before issuing the notice. Therein he has stat...
Hafiz Ali Khan Vs. Mohd. Ishaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All469
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of his suit for ejectment of defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 from the land in dispute. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated, in brief, as follows:-- The plaintiff claimed to have obtained a permanent lease in respect of the land in question from defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were said to be the owners thereof, and to have obtained consent for the same from Mata Prasad and Mohan Lal, the other co-owners. He also maintained to have purchased the share of Mohd. Ahsan alias Gullar, the other co-sharer. On a portion of that land the defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have raised certain constructions and carry on business therein. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of grant of permanent lease the said defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 did not pay Baithki charges to defendants Nos. 2 and 3, hence the plaintiff was entitled to realise that charge from them on the basis of permanent lease aforesaid and also on the ground that he was a co-owner...
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Goel Electric Stores, Chandi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All494
Hari Swarup, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction to require the defendant U. P. State Electricity Board to sell to the plaintiff the goods for which tenders were invited and the plaintiff had made the tender. Further injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from considering and accepting fresh revised offers in respect of the goods in dispute in the present suit.2. This case, in brief, was that defendant No. 2, the Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Stores Inspection Circle, on behalf of U. P. State Electricity Board, invited tenders for the sale of goods mentioned in the invitation to purchase the goods. Last date for the submission of the tenders was 13th Sept., 1973. On that date the tender filed by the plaintiff was returned as the date had extended to Oct. 16, 1973. The plaintiff filed the tender again along with a correction slip offering higher price than it quoted earlier. The tenders were opened on Kith Oct., 1973. On that date n...
Mahabir and anr. Vs. Smt. Dayawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All393
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of a projection. The plaintiff's case was that the projection in the form of a 'chhajja' made by the defendants extends upto the staircase belonging to the plaintiff. On that basis she claimed the decree. The defence was that there was no encroachment and, in the alternative, it was pleaded that the new chhajja had been built only to replace the old wooden chhajja. The trial court found the defendant's case proved and hence dismissed the suit. The appellate court has allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit for removal of that part of the projection which extended over the staircase belonging to the plaintiff as indicated in the plaint map. The defendants have filed the second appeal.2. The lower appellate court has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court about the extension of the chhajja over the plaintiff's land and about the replacement of the old chhajja by the new one...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi Sehgal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All499
Prem Prakash, J. 1. This special appeal arises from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1026 of 1969, 'brought by Smt, Lakshmi Devi Sehgal (hereinafter referred to as the consumer) against the U. P. State Electricity Board (to be described hereinafter as 'the Board'), directing it by a writ in the nature of mandamus to replace at its cost, the stolen transformer, cost of which the Board by its order dated 24-10-69 had directed the consumer to deposit, to maintain and continue the supply of electricity, in terms of the agreement between the Board and the consumer, as amended by the Board's memorandum dated 12-12-1968 adding to the conditions of supply, a fresh condition No. 23 (a) providing:'If in any case the transformer in rural area outside the premises of a consumer from which he is receiving supply is stolen then the consumer will have to bear the cost of its replacement. If, however, there are more than one consumer then cost will be shared in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›