Allahabad Court May 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.
Ram Dawar (Since Dead and therefore Represented by His Son Chandrajeet ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All430
ORDERB.N. Sapru, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges en order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and also an order passed in revision. Both these orders are adverse to the petitioner.2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit on 26th March, 1962 under Section 229-B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the contesting respondents. He had prayed for a declaration that he was sirdar of the aforesaid plots. He also prayed that if he be found out of possession, he be also granted a decree for possession as against the contesting respondents.3. It must be made clear that apart from plots Nos. 60 and 94 certain other plots were also part of the khata concerned.4. According to the allegations made by the petitioner, he filed an amendment application in the suit praying that in place of the Gaon Samaj, Gaon Sabha should be impleaded. He pleaded that apart from the aforesaid plots Nos. 60 and 94, t...
Mahmood Khan and anr. Vs. Ayub Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All463
1. The present second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, but because of the importance of the questions of law involved in the case, he referred the case to a larger Bench. This is how this appeal has come before us.2. The present appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract. The parties belong to the same family and descend from Ajib Khan, as would be evident from the pedigree, given below; AJIB KHAN ___________________________________|___________________________________ | | | | Amir Buniyad Jhandu Altaf Baksh Khan Khan Khan | | | | Abdul Ayub Abdul Masooqa Razzaq Khan Sattar Ali plff. | ______________________________________________________________ | | | | Mahmud Khan Mahboob Khan Mahjooj Khan D. 3. D. 2.Abdul Razzaq was the bhumidhar and sirdar of the disputed plots. On 10th December, 1969, he entered into an agreement with Ayub Khan to sell away the same for a consideration of Rupees 1600/-. 'A sum of Rs. 1200/- was pai...
Jagdish Singh Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All24
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun dated l-2-1978.2. The only ground pressed in the writ petition was that the courts below committed an error in holding that the need of a daughter-in-law could be a basis for an application filed under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.3. Clause (a) of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 lays down that if a building is bona fide required by a landlord either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction for occupation by himself or any member of his family the release may be made to him. The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3 (g) of the said Act. 'Family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her;--(i) spouse,(ii) male lineal descendants,(iii) such parents, grand parent and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been normally res...
Govind Lal Chawla Vs. C.K. Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All446
M.M. Gupta, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by defendant Govind Lal Chawla against the decree passed by the trial court cancelling the sale deed dated 24-12-1966 executed by respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Lucas, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the appellant. That decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Mrs. C. Gordon and Mrs. Lucas own house No. 34 Muir Road, Allahabad. Its corresponding old Corporation Number was 20. Both these ladies entered into an agreement for sale in favour of respondent Sri C. K. Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/- on 4-8-1966. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid towards the earnest money. Some time later a further sum of Rs. 750/- was paid to these two ladies towards the earnest money. According to the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six weeks from the date of the agreement. Subsequently on 1-12-1966 Madanlal who is a pro forma respondent, sent a notice to vendors s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Lal Vohra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR473(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' A ', has referred the following question for our opinion:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of penalty passed by the IAC on 17-3-1973 were within time and within his jurisdiction having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the amendments effected to those sections by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970?'2. The reference relates to the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessment for both these years was completed, but subsequently was reopened under Section 148 of the Act. For the years 1967-68, it was completed on December 11, 1970, and for the year 1968-69, also 6n the same date. The final income determined after the reassessment was Rs. 11,390 for the assessment year1967-68 and Rs. 16,423 for the assessment year 1968-69. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the ITO for both those years on December 11, 1970, and the matte...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR392(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1965-66, it, on 3rd August, 1965, filed a return showing an income of Rs. 28,918. On 5th February, 1970, the ITO noticed that the said return was not accompanied by the declaration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and that there has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of its partners. He issued a notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the firm may not be assessed as an association of persons. In reply, the firm filed a fresh return showing the same amount as income, and with the said return it filed a declaration in Form No. 12 under Section 184(7) of the Act.2. The ITO refused renewal of registration on the ground that the firm had not been granted continuation of registration in the last two preceding years, and the declaration in Form No. 12 ought to have been filed along with the return. He assessed the firm in the status of an association of pers...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Om Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR215(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in holding that, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass order of penalty in respect of the assessment year 1969-70?'2. The assessee carries on retail business at Delhi in woollen goods. For the assessment year 1969-70, it filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 28,170. The assessment was, however, computed on a total income of Rs. 27,860. On appeal, the total income computed by the ITO was sustained and a loss of Rs. 14,313 was determined by the AAC. While computing the assessment, the ITO initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, and referred the matter to the IAC under Section 274 of the Act. The IAC held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were attracted, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 by his order d...
Ramji Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: [1982]50STC344(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question referred for our opinion is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the accounts books of the assessee were validly rejected. From the order passed by the revising authority it appears that the accounts books of the assessee were rejected because the sales were written by the assessee after counting the till, separate cash memos were not issued in respect of retail sales and there was a difference in the book and returned versions of the turnover. In the statement of the case the revising authority has pointed out that there was no material in support of the findings that the sales were written after counting the till or that there was any difference in the book and returned versions of the turnover. Learned standing counsel has not been able to point out anything on the record to sustain these findings. These findings were also not supported by any finding recorded by the assessing authority or the appellate authority. The only reason wh...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sri Mahadeo Dal Mills and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All513
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This second appeal is by the Railway Administration in a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,360/- charged as excess freight at the destination station on a certain consignment.2. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 2,137/- on account of excess charge and Rs. 33/- on account of cost of notice, total Rs. 2,170/- on the finding that the classification of the peas, that had been made at the booking station was correct, and the freight determined to be payable in the Railway Receipt is also correct. On appeal by the Railway Administration the lower appellate court has confirmed the decree of the trial court on the finding that the Railway Administration was not entitled to charge freight at the enhanced rate claimed and charged by it at the destination station.3. The basis on which the lower appellate court has approached the case is that under Rule 115 of the Goods Tariff Rules (Part I) all that the Railway Administration could do was to re-measure, re-weigh and re-classify...
Madan Lal Vs. Ram Swarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All542
M.N. Shukla, J.1. This appeal on behalf of the defendant, unlike other commonplace appeals of a set pattern, arising out of an order refusing to set aside an ex parte, decree assumes importance on account of an interesting question of law raised by the counsel for the appellant.2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 823.33 p. as arrears of rent against the appellant on 18-12-1970 in the court of Musif Lansdowne. By virtue of a notification, No. 526 dated 25-10-1972, the powers of Small Cause Court were conferred on Munsifs and Civil Judges, The notification reads thus :'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act, XII of 1887) as amended by the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972), delegated by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of the said Section 25 to the High Court, and in supersession of all earlier not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »