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.
Bhaggal and anr. Vs. Mahadeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All479
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising from a suit for possession over certain constructions shown by letters Va Bha Ksha and Pa Ta Bha Ra Ya Pha with the land underneath and land shown by the letters Ka Ra Ya Pha Da Kha on the map annexed to the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 50/-as damages. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that the parties were descended from a common ancestor Sukkhu who had three sons Thakur Din, Mahabir and Mahadeo. The plaintiffs Bhaggal and Rup Narain were the sons of Mahabir. Mahadeo and his three sons Bhagwan Dass, Raja Ram and Ram Lakhan were defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Sukkihu died about 45 years, before the date of suit, whichwas filed on August, 31, 1962, leaving him surviving his three sons Thakur Din, Mahabir and Mahadeo, that a few years after the death of Sukkhu, his three sons became separate in estate and residence about 40 years ago; that the house shown by the letters Ja Jha Ta the Da Ga Gha on the plaint map was an...
Latif Ahmad and anr. Vs. Smt. Amtul Rahman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All423
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,235/-. The plaintiff came to the court with the allegations that the first defendant Jeet Ram was the tenant on payment of a rent of Rs. 50/- per month of certain land in the nature of a Gher that the said defendant No. 1 subjet the Gher to the second defendant Latif Ahmad without the plaintiff's permission and a suit, being Suit No. 225 of 1959, was instituted by the plaintiff for their ejectment and arrears of rent, as well as damages for unlawful use and occupation for the period ending on May 12, 1959. The suit was decreed. The first defendant in the present suit, namely, Jeet Ram, filed an appeal and prayed for the facility of paying the decretal amount in instalments. The second defendant Latif Ahmad also filed an appeal. His case was that he was not a sub-tenant but a tenant of the plaintiff and was accordingly not liable to ejectment. Jeet Ram's appeal was allowed but that of Latif Ahmad was ...
National Timber Mart Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC205(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. During the years 1967-68, the assessee was a dealer in bamboos, bailies and timber, etc. Timber and bamboo and their products were taxable at single point under Notification No. 3393/X--1012-1962. The relevant items of the notification were timber, bamboo and their products. On 31st July, 1967, a notification was issued under Section 3-A of the Act, which was to the following effect:With effect from August 1, 1967, the turnover in respect of timber, that is to say, the wood of sheesham, teak, sal, sakhu, haldu, tun, mango, jamun, nim, goolar, sheras, deodar, chir (pine) and mahua trees whether growing or cut not including its products, shall not be liable to tax except--(a) in the case of the aforesaid goods produced in Uttar Pradesh at the point of sale by the forest department or private owners of forests, as the case may be; and(b) in the case of the aforesaid goods imported from outside Uttar Pradesh, at the point of sale by the importer;and the Governor is furt...
Shanker Lal Murlidhar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC483(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee dealt in mill-made cloth, hessian and iron hoops, etc., during the year 1966-67. It disclosed a turnover of Rs. 12,437.00 for purposes of taxation under the Central Sales Tax Act. This was enhanced to Rs. 2,12,437 after the Sales Tax Officer had rejected the account books. On appeal, it was reduced to Rs. 1,12,437.00. After the revision filed against this order failed, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court has referred the following question of law for our opinion :Whether there is any material for the assessment of the suppressed inter-State sales at Rs. 1,12,437 2. While rejecting the account books of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer found that the suppressed sales made by the assessee in one day alone was Rs. 6,045.76. This figure was obtained by reference of two bills found at the time of survey. Taking this fact into consideration, he estimated the suppressed turnover at Rs. 2,00,000 and a...
Mohammed Fasi Vs. Abdul Qyayum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All470
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party Abdul Quayum in the court of Judge Small Causes for ejectment of the defendant from shop No. C-1/20 situated in Mo-hall a Phatak Sheikh Saleem, Varanasi and for recovery of rent and damages. The defendant did not deny in his written statement, as filed originally, that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop and he was its tenant, but by a subsequent application added para 34-B to the written statement stating that besides the plaintiff his other three brothers as well were owners of the shop. An application was also moved, paper No. 110-C, stating that since intricate question of title regarding the property was involved in the suit the plaint might be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff filed an objection to that application.2. The trial court took note of certain circumstances which were:(1) that in the written stat...
Ram Bali and ors. Vs. Jaipal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All514
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the Bhumidhars of an area of 21 decimals shown by the letters ABCD on the plaint map out of plot No. 66, which number had been given to it by the consolidation authorities in place of its original number 406. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants was that although they were Bhumidhars of the middle portion of that plot while the defendants were Bhumidhars of two portions, one to the north and the other to the south of their portion, the consolidation authorities by mistake recorded the whole of the plot No. 66 in the name of the defendants as Bhumidhars.2. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court maintained the dismissal of the suit on two grounds : (1) that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; and (2) that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.3. Mr. Vindeshwari Pd., learned counsel for the appellants, has ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)311
Satish Chandra, C.J. - For the assessment year 1961-62, the Tribunal referred to this Court the question whether the amount credited to Loss-Equalization and Capital Redemption Fund after making deduction from the price paid for sugarcane by the members of the assessees, was revenue in nature and so liable to tax. This Court in C.I.T. U.P. vs. the Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Bazpur answered the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. It was held that the aforesaid receipt was not revenue in nature and hence was not taxable.2. In the present reference the same question has been referred by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1960-61. For the reasons given in the aforesaid decision. We answer the question 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/-....
Hari Singh and anr. Vs. Umrao Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All65
M.N. Shukla, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance. The relief of specific performance was not granted by the Courts below but the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 4/- per cent per annum. Out of the above amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded by way of damages for breach of contract and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- related to the refund of the earnest money.2. The short facts of the case are: that the house in dispute in respect of whichan agreement for sale dated 3-4-1962 had been arrived at belonged to defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 and his brothers. It is not disputed that a moiety share belonged to defendant No. 1 on the one hand and the remaining half belonged on the other hand, to defendant No. 2 and his three brothers. The agreement was to the effect that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 would sell the said house to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hind Steel Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC402(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has referred the following question for our opinion :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the dealer was assessable under Section 18 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, when his purchases were of Rs. 5,360 in a period of four months in this year?2. The assessee started a new business from 20th December, 1968. Up to 31st March, 1969, he made purchases of the value of Rs. 5,360 and effected sales of Rs. 2,220. A question arose as to whether the assessee was liable to be taxed as his turnover during this period was less than Rs. 12,000, which was the minimum limit provided by Section 3 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, however, brought the turnover to tax. An appeal filed, failed. The revising authority, however, set aside the assessment on the ground that the turnover of the assessee did not reach the minimum taxable limit provided for under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18(2) and (3) of the Act, as it stood in the...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. P.C. Majumdar and Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC154(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a registered dealer. For the assessment year 1967-68, he claimed exemption from sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 20,000, which was the subject-matter of resale by him. This turnover was refused exemption from tax on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish C form. The matter went up before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. He held that Rule 8-B(4)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules was not mandatory. It was directory. Therefore, the dealer could prove that he had sold goods to a registered dealer by adducing other evidence. The assessee said that he had received information from the Victoria Mills, Kanpur, that they have sent the C forms, but they had been lost in transit. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, accepted this explanation and held that the assessee did all that he could do to prove that they had sold goods to a registered dealer and so his failure to furnish the C forms would not lead to the drawing of any adverse inferen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »