Allahabad Court November 1978 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.
Milap Chand Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All162
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession over a portion of a house at Mirzapur.2. One Lokai had a son Baldeo and two daughters, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Smt. Satti Devi. Baldeo was married to Smt. Basnati Devi and had a son Badri Prasad and a daughter Smt. Lalmaai. Badri Prasad is the plaintiff-respondent. Smt. Bhagwati Devi was married to Mahadeo. They had a son Manni Lal who was married to another lady also named Smt. Satti. Loakai's second daughter Smt, Satfi devi was married to Beni Pd. He had two sons Munni Lal and Punni Lal. punni Lal's son Milap Chand is the defendant appellant.3. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that Baldeo was the owner of the house of which the property in suit formed part. He used to carry on some business in which he occasionally incurred debts and, therefore, he executed a sale deed dated 8th April, 1925 of the house in favour of his wife and got it registered in order to keep the house safe although the...
L. Kashi Nath Seth Vs. Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All128
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6429 of 1971. The judgment under appeal is dated May 19, 1975. Two writ petitions were disposed by the same judgment. The other writ petition was numbered 563 of 1972. Munshi Ram v. Collector, Central Excise. That was partly allowed. The present special appeal does not relate to that part of the judgment.2. The only point raised by the petitioner in the writ petition No. 6429 of 1971 before the learned single Judge was that the provisions of Sections 71 and 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were unconstitutional and void. The learned single Judge found that although Sections 71 and 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Collector of Central Excise, (AIR 1971 SC 1170), the vice pointed out by the Supreme Court was removed by amendm...
Manik Chand Gupta and anr. Vs. Virendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ412
B.N. Katju, J.1. This petition had been filed by Manik Chandra Gupta and Mohammad kaleem praying that the opposite parties namely Virendrea Kumar, Sampadak (Editor) 'Deshdoot' (Dainki Jagran Jhansi Prakash) Rajender Gupta Managing Editor 'Deshdoot (Dainik Jagran Jhansi Prakashan), Bajrang Lal Local correspondent of Desdoot Hindi Daily, Cr. Mohammad Usman Chheola and Izhar be punished under the contempt of Court Act.2. It is alleged in the petition that after the order of Sri Gulab Singh Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Machhlishahr, district Jaunpur dated 1-2-1978 was passed releasing the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner under Section 146 Cr. P.C the opposite parties Bajtang Lal Dr. Mohmmad Usman chheola and Izahar with a view to scandalize the Magistrate got an article published in 'Deshdoot' in Collusion with the Editor of the said paper. The said article runs as follows :Uttar Pradesh ke anchal se Praganadhikari ke pakshpatpurn ravaiye ke biruddh hartal: Sabzimandi me punah ni...
Sewak Ram and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All187
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these: 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the father and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the major sons of the petitioner No. 1. Separate notices under Section 10 (2) of the Act were issued to each of them. The petitioner No. 1 filed his objections on 26th June, 1976. On the same day the Prescribed Authority fixed the next following day i.e. 27th June, 1976 for recording of evidence. It seems that the Prescribed Authority was in undue haste to decide the case. It will be seen that notice had been issued to the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and they had not filed their objections on 26th June. 1976. The statutory time within which they could file their objections was not still over and as a matter of fact, these petitioners filed their objections on 27th June, 1976. The petitioner No. 1 examined five witnesses and then he filed an application, a ...
Mithilesh Kumari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR728(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. In pursuance of an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, a raid was organised and conducted on the business and residential premises of M/s. Boolchand Fakir Chand, Dhampur, and its four partners who were brothers. This raid and the consequent search took place on August 20, 1976; as a result, a large amount of cash, documents, gold and ornaments were seized. A notice was issued under Section 132(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the firm to explain the acquisition of various seized assets and source of money. The partners of the firm filed an explanation. Ultimately, on November 16, 1976, the ITO passed an order under Section 132(5) of the Act holding that he estimated the concealed income of the assessee-firm at Rs. 4,00,910 as income from undisclosed sources. He further held that on this income at the rate prevalent in the year 1976-77 tax liability to the tune of Rs. 3,34,894 arises. Penalty to the tune of Rs. 5,02,340 was also to be imp...
Brij Kali Devi and ors. Vs. Ramchand Bishan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All49
H.N. Seth, J.1. Shrimati Brij Kali Devi widow of deceased Amrit Lal, her children and parents of Amrit Lal have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated 5-12-1973.2. On behalf of the appellants, it was claimed that on 2nd of Aug. 1969 at about 4 A. M., Amrit Lal, the deceased was going on his ekka laden with vegetables and fruits to Khuldabad Mandi in the district of Allahabad. A motor truck No. BRV 4263 which was being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and dashed against the ekka with the result Amrit Lal fell down from the ekka. He came under the truck and was crushed to death. At the time of his death, Amrit Lal was about 30 years old and was earning a sum of Rs. 750/- per month by dealing in wholesale supply of vegetables and fruits. Normally, members of Amrit Lal's family lived up to the age of 80 or 85 years and his life expectancy had been cut short by about 50 years. T...
Kaushal Kishore and anr. Vs. Civil Judge, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All92
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.2. The facts, in brief, are these:The usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to one Shri Bhaiyya Lal and he filed objections through his Mukhtar-e-am Sri Narvada Prasad. The objections were dealt with and disposed of by the Prescribed Authority. The said tenure-holder died on 19th July, 1976 and his heirs andlegal representatives filed the appeal before the appellate court below. The appeal was partly allowed. The petitioners have come up in the instant petition and the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions before me. His first contention is that the appellate court below has due to an inadvertence failed to notice the contention which was raised before the said court in respect of the effect of consolidation proceedings on the ceiling proceedings. Counsel has drawn my attention to the affidavit of the petitioner No...
Sohan Lal, Dist. Deoria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All93
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The petitioner, Messrs Sohan Lal, carries on the business of dealing in gold ornaments in the city of Deoria. He holds gold dealer's licence No. 195-Gold/63. For 1975 his application for renewal of the licence was presented in time. He was, however, served with a notice to show cause why his application for renewal should not be rejected in view of the fact that the transactions made by him in 1974 were below the limit prescribed under Rule 3 (ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner submitted an explanation which was that he was not able to do his business properly in 1974 on account of drought. That explanation did not find favour with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2, who was the licensing authority and his application for renewal was rejected by an order dated 22-2-1975.The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order which as well was dismissed by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kailash Motors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)239; [1982]134ITR312(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee was a partnership firm. Its partners had a capital account as well as a current account with the firm. The firm paid interest to the partners on the balances in the capital account. The firm also charged interest from the partners on the debit balances of their current account.2. For the assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the ITO disallowed the entire amount of interest paid by the firm to its partners in respect of the capital account under Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act. The assessee appealed. The AAC held that it was the net amount paid by the firm to the partner, after adjusting the interest paid by the partner to the firm, that alone could be disallowed under Section 40(b). He granted relief to the partners accordingly.3. The revenue went up to the Tribunal, which affirmed the view taken by the AAC. It relied on a decision of this court in Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad v. CIT : [1953]24ITR176(All) .4. At the instance of the Commissioner of I...
Smt. Shyam Dulari Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All192
ORDERGopi Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against an order passed by the Civil judge, Basti, dated 15-11-1973, refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend her plaint at the appellate stage. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the contesting defendant-opposite parties on the allegation that she had already obtained a registered sale-deed in her favour from the vendor and the sale-deed in favour of the contesting opposite parties was collusive and ineffective in law. The plaintiff alleged herself to be in possession of the land in dispute. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that besides the sale-deed in their favour being valid the plaintiff was out of possession and the suit for mere cancellation was not maintainable. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the plaintiff applied for the amendment of the plaint praying for a relief of possession in the alternative to be add...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »