Allahabad Court April 1978 Judgments
State Vs. N.C. Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1340
ORDERM. Murtaza Husain, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (new) has been filed by the State of U. P. for expunging certain remarks and observations made by Sri N. C. Jain, III Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri while disposing of two connected Sessions Trials, namely Nos. A-247 of 1974 and A-417 of 1974 through his judgment dated 16-8-77.2. Four persons, namely Asa Ram, Babu, Raja Ram and Danna stood their trials before the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid cases. The first named three persons faced their trial under Section 395 I.P.C. whereas the fourth one namely Danna stood his trial under Section 412 I. P. C, A sub-Inspector of Police namely, Sri L. K. Nigam had investigated the crime which had given rise to those cases. In spite of repeated efforts made by the learned Sessions Judge attendance of S.I. L. K. Nigam could not be procured and the case was decided without recording his evidence. A panel Lawyer of Lakhimpur Kheri namely Sri Rajendra Singh conduct...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gomti Devi Vs. Hari Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All402
S.D. Agrawal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant against the defendant respondent under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, C. P. C. for enforcement of the mortgage deed dated 15th July 1950. The suit was filed in forma pauperis on 1lth July 1963. During the hearing of the application under Order XXXIII, Rule 7, C. P. C. and after one of the plaintiff's witnesses was examined on 20th February 1965 the plaintiff appellant gave a statement before the court that she was then in a position to pay the court-fee and two months' time be granted to her for the said purpose. On the same date the Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, before whom the said application was pending, passed the following order:'The applicant is now prepared to pay court-fee. Application to sue as pauper is dismissed. Court-fee should be paid within two months.'2. On 20th April 1965 the plaintiff appellant again moved an application for grant of fifteen days' further time to...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Chandra Das Vs. Satish Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All412
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for contribution for the amount paid by the plaintiff in execution of a decree on the foot of a mortgage that had been passed against him and the defendants, in order to have the sale of the mortgaged property set aside under Order XXI, Rule 89, C. P. C. The plaintiff had claimed in all the sum of Rs. 3200/-, Rs. 1600/- each against the two defendants, although according to the figures worked out in the plaint the amount of claim worked out at Rs. 4301.50P. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1173/- with proportionate costs against defendant No. 2 and for recovery of Rupees 935,09P., against defendant No. 1, the costs being made easy in so far as the decree against defendant No. 1 was concerned. The defendant No, 2 was required to pay the amount within six months from the date of the decree, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to realise the same by sale of l/3rd share in House No. 7, Minto Park ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. Subedar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All472
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed dated July 22, 1966 executed by the second defendant Jagtamba Singh in favour of thefirst defendant Subedar Singh in respect of certain plots of land detailed at the foot of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that he was adopted on Feb. 9, 1943 by the second defendant Jagtamba Singh as his son, that the property transferred under the sale-deed was ancestral in which he had an interest by birth as a son of Jagtamba Singh; that there was no legal necessity for the sale and his consent not having been taken the sale was liable to be set aside. It was also pleaded that the consideration for the sale was wholly inadequate and indeed the consideration shown in the sale-deed was fictitious and that the execution of the sale-deed was an imprudent act on behalf of the second defendant. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was in possession over the land covered by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mobarak Ali Khan and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)468; [1980]124ITR239(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The question refers to the assessment year 1968-69. Ahsan AH Khan who had been admitted to the benefits of the assessee-partnership firm attained majority on November 18, 1967. On January 1, 1968, a fresh partnership deed was executed in which the minor Ahsan Ali Khan became a fullfledged partner. The relevant accounting period for the assessment year ended on December 31, 1967. Therefore, for purposes of this year, the position was that the minor became major on November 18, 1967, and before he could exercise the option within the given period of six months, the year ended. The position is that till the end of the year in question, there has been no change in the constitutionof the firm as held in the CIT v. Mathura Prasad Annoolal : [1978]115ITR372(All) . In this view, the firm was entitled to continuance of registration. The Tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a change in the constitution of the firm. The question of law whether there was a c...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mewa Lal Sankatha Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR356(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The questions of law which have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that for the purposes of calculating penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as amended by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968, were not applicable and that the penalty has to be calculated according to the provisions of the Act which was applicable as per the provisions in force prior to April 1, 1968 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in reducing the amount of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) from Rs. 18,000 to minimum imposable with reference to the tax sought to be evaded ?'2. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee filed a return of his income before April 1, 1968. In due course, the assessment order was passed. It appears that there was a r...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: [1988]115ITR270(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the assessee-company claimed development rebate at the rate of 20%. TheIncome-tax Officer allowed the claim but to a lesser extent. Subsequently, the assessee applied for rectification under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that it was entitled to be treated as a priority industry under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act and, as such, entitled to a development rebate at the rate of 35%. The Income-tax Officer allowed the rectification but only in so far as the assessee was treated to be a priority industry. He repelled the claim for rebate on the ground that the assessee had not created the requisite reserve. This view was upheld in appeal. The assessee then went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the rectification proceedings are part of the assessment proceedings and hence the Income-tax Officer should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to have created a further reserve. The counsel for the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Subash Chand.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)457
Satish Chandra, C.J. - The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. It claimed exemption u/S. 5(i)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957n for the capital employed in the cold storage. This claim was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the question whether the assessee company was an industrial company within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act and, therefore, entitled to concessional rate of taxation.2. In Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Farrukhabad Cold Storage, this court has held that the assessee was an industrial company within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act. This decision is applicable to the present case.3. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200/-....
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Minzar HussaIn and ors. Vs. Mohd. Asghar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All413
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising from a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of certain land described at the toot of the plaint to the extent of 1/5th share and for partition of the plaintiff's share in the land in suit.2. The plaintiffs' case was that Karim Bux, father of the second defendant was the owner of the house in dispute. Karim Bux died leaving behind him his son, defendant No. 2 and three daughters, Smt. Mehtabi, Smt. Sughra and Smt. Sayyedan. The share of Smt. Mehtabi in the house was one fifth. Smt. Mehtabi owed a debt to Sheikh Mohammed Yusuf, the father of the plaintiffs, in respect of which Sheikh Mohd. Yusuf filed a suit in the Small Cause Court. Sambhal, being Suit No. 46 of 1940. The suit was decreed against the assets of Smt. Mehtabi and in execution of the said decree Sheikh Mohd. Yusuf purchased Smt. Mehtabi's l/5th share in the house in suit on Dec. 1. 1943...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yashwant Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR18(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the two minor sons and one minor daughter of the assessee, an individual, from the partnership firm to the benefits of which they are admitted and in which the assessee is a partner as karta of his Hindu undivided family and not in his individual capacity, can be included in the income of the assessee under Section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question referred to us stands squarely answered by the decision reported in Madho Prasad v. CIT : [1978]112ITR492(All) .'3. Shri Ajit Dhawan, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended on the basis of Section 64(ii) that the assessee was not an individual, as he was a partner in the firm in the capacity of karta. He being not an individual, as contemplated in Section 64(ii), the income could not be clubbed along with the income of the minor sons a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »