Allahabad Court May 1978 Judgments
Shyam Glass Works Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All19; [1978(37)FLR261]
K.N. Singh, J.1. This petition is directed against the proceedings taken by the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner for levy of damages and other charges as well as recovery of the same under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952.2. The petitioner company committed default in making its contribution towards provident fund dues of its employees during the period April 1962 to Sept. 1967. The petitioner company had deposited the provident fund dues but the deposit was made after the expiry of the prescribed date. On 18th Sept. 1968 the Accounts Officer acting on behalf of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner U. P. Kanpur, issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of levy of damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, The notice stated that as the petitioner had deposited the provident fund dues after the expiry of the prescribed date it was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 14,856.85 paise as damages under Section 14-B of the Act and Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Iqbal Kaur Vs. Chief of Army Staff
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All417
Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30th of July, 1973, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut.2. The fact leading to this appeal can briefly be stated as under:On 11th of Nov., 1970 at about 8 a.m. Sri Jaswant Singh Dhillan, aged 50 years, a Transport Agent, died in an accident with military truck on the junction of Delhi-Baghpat Road at Meerut. Smt. Iqbal Kaur and Km. Gorinder-jit Kaur, the widow and minor daughter respectively of Jaswant Singh Dhillan deceased, filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them. The allegation made by them in the claim petition briefly stated was that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving by Sepoy Ram Niwas, respondent No. 4, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Besides sepoy Ram Niwas the Chief of Army Staff, the Commandant A. S. C. Centre (North), and Sub-Area Commander, Meerut were impleaded as C. Ps. It appear...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All439
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. These are two second appeals arising from two connected suits : (1) Suit No. 127 of 1964 which was the leading case and the plaintiffs in which were Gopal Prasad and 3 others, who are the four appellants in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1968; and (2) Suit No. 206 of 1965 in which the plaintiff was Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi who is the sole appellant in Second Appeal No. 2864 of 1968. The first of these two suits was for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh from realising in one lump sum or by arresting the plaintiff, the amount of a loan which had been taken by him. The other suit was for damages against the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri R. C. Saxena, the then Tehsildar, Mathura, and Sri Raghunandan Swarup, the then District Industries Officer, Mathura, in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-, for wrongfully arresting the plaintiff in order to recover another loan.2. The trial court decreed both the suits, by issue of a permanent injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Udho and ors. Vs. Smt. Khimian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All508
M.N. Shukla, J.1. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents in the court of Munsif, Moradabad on 18-10-1966 for possession over two rooms situate in the city of Moradabad on the allegations that the property was purchased by one Uttam, father of the respondents by means of a registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1902 and since then the plaintiffs had been in possession thereof as owners, that some thatched houses were originally built up on the said property and the same had undergone changes and alterations, that Udho, defendant No. 1 had originally taken the said rooms for the purpose of tethering his cattle from Uttam's predecessor as licensee but later on Udho started paying rent to him and thus he became the tenant of the disputed property. It was alleged that Udho also paid rent to the father of the plaintiffs that the present plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit No. 335 of 1964 in the court of the Munsif, Mor...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Bahu Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR468(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. In pursuance of directions issued by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the onus of proving the deposits as assessee's income lay on the department ?' 2. The assessment year in question is the year 1964-65. The assessee who carried on money-lending business filed a return showing an income of Rs. 1,326 from property and a loss of Rs. 255 from business. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 52,931. This amount was computed by making the following addition : Rs. 25,000 on account of unexplained investment treated as incomefrom undisclosed sources; Rs. 14,748 on account of difference in the balance-sheet; Rs. 6,000 for low rate of interest shown; Rs. 5,000 disallowed out...
Tag this Judgment!Dhir Singh Vs. Peer Bux and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All22
ORDERDeoki Nandan, J.1. This is a second appeal from a proceeding to set aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Civil P. C. Several grounds were raised in support of the application but they did not find favour with the executing court which dismissed it with costs. An appeal lies from the refusal to set aside the sale which was the main subject-matter of appeal before the District Court which was heard and allowed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bijnor by order dated July 31, 1968. The learned Civil Judge held that there had been material violation of the mandatory rules in as much as the sale of the land had been effected without prior attachment of the property. This ground was not raised at any time before the sale. On the other hand, the judgment-debtor had expressly stated that the land could be sold even without a sale proclamation in exchange for some other land which had been attached and proclaimed to be sold by the court. The judgment-debtor herself invited the sale o...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All386; [1978(37)FLR118]
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This group of writ petitions questions the constitutional vires of Section 37-A of the U. P, Excise Act, 1910, and of the notifications issued thereunder on March 30, and 31, 1978. These notifications have, in the main, introduced total prohibition of Tari in this State and partial prohibition in respect of country-made and foreign liquors.2. Some of the petitioners are traders in Tari, some others are licence-holders in country liquor, licence-holders in foreign liquors, holders of licences in F.L. 2, F.L. 6 and F.L. 7 and Bhang, and also individuals who say they are addicted to intoxicating liquors. The impugned notifications have totally banned the trade of petitioners (except petitioners in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1978, who claim to be addicts). They all challenge Section 37-A aforesaid on the following grounds:--(1) Legislative competences(2) excessive delegations(3) contravention of Article 19 of the Constitution; and(4) violation of Article 14 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All397; [1978]115ITR796(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The reference has been referred to a Full Bench because the Division Bench felt that this Court's decision in Commr. of Income-tax v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar 1975 Tax LR 339 requires reconsideration. The reported decision was also of the present assessee, but it was rendered in respect of earlier assessment years. The facts are hence identical.2. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court:--(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its conclusion that the partnership deed dated 15th November, 1961, admitted the minors to the benefits of the partnership, and they were not full-fledged partners ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee firm was entitled to renewal of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In respect of the first question, the fac...
Tag this Judgment!The Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Zila Parishad, Mirzap ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All425
S.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction restraining the respondent from realisms the circumstance and property tax amounting to Rs. 4,000/- for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.2. On 13th May 1964 the Zilla Parishad, Mirzapur, sent a notice to the appellant demanding from the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd., Mirzapur, circumstance and property tax amounting to Rs. 2,000/- for the assessment year 1964-65. Another notice dated 13th Aug. 1964 was issued by the Zilla Parishad, Mirzapur for the year 1965-66. On 3rd March 1966 the Secretary of the Zilla Parishad demanded a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,000/- for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Immediately thereafter the present suit was filed by the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. for an injunction as mentioned above. The suit was filed on the ground that the appellant does not ply any truck or bus on hire within the Jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad and as such i...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhushan Khanna and ors. Vs. Brij Nandan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All459
ORDERK.N. Seth, J.1. This revision by the defendants is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment in a suit tried as a small cause court suit. The only question pressed for consideration is that the decree passed by the learned Judge is a nullity as the Small Cause Court Judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to try the suit,2. The suit was originally filed in the court of Munsif, Moradabad, for ejectment of the defendants from the shop in dispute and for recovery of mesne profits and damages. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the shop in dispute was let out to Ram Ratan Lal Khanna, father of defendant applicants No. 1 to 4 and husband of defendant applicant No. 5, on 2-6-1946 for a period of two years. During the continuance of the tenancy, U. P. Act No. III of 1947 came into force and Ram Ratan Lal continued to remain in possession as a tenant of the shop. His tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 5-6-1969...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »