Allahabad Court January 1979 Judgments
Sohan Lal Vs. Hodal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All230
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a defendant's revision filed under Section 115 Civil P. C. against a judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 14-9-1977 accepting the revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The plaintiffs are the opposite parties in this revision. They filed Suit No. 457 of 1975 for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. They alleged that the defendant was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 besides Rs. 3 for electrical charges of a pucca shop situated in Mohalla Jwalapuri G. T. Road, Aligarh. He did not pay the rent and the electricity charges amounting to Rs, 1245 due from 1-10-1973 to 31-12-1974, despite a notice dated 27-1-1975.3. The suit was contested by the defendant claiming that the rate of rent initially agreed between the parties was Rs. 10. He asserted that he had been paying rent every month and that the plaintiff had been receiving the same. The defendant'...
Tag this Judgment!Farooq and ors. Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All298
M.N. Shukla, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal directed against an order of remand.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of a house on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 2-4-1896, on payment of Rs. 200/- or such amount as the court may find due and for possession. The house had been originally mortgaged by one Ram Lala to Smt. Nasiba for a term of five years without any agreement as to payment of interest. The plaintiffs alleged to be legal representatives of the mortgagor while the defendants claimed to be legal representatives of the original mortgagor. It so happened that during the pendency of the suit Abdul Sattar, defendant No. 7 one of the alleged mortgagees died. An application for substituting his heirs was made by the plaintiffs but it was rejected along with the application under Sec. 5, Limitation Act for condoning the delay. In the opinion of the trial court the delay had not been sufficiently explained and hence the application under Section 5 and also the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Jamboo Parasad JaIn Vs. Smt. Malti Prabha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All260
ORDERA. Banerji, J.1. These two civil revisions are between the same parties and arise out of two different orders passed in the same matrimonial suit and it will be convenient to decide them by a common order,2. Shri Jamboo Prasad Jain, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void or a decree for divorce be granted to the petitioner against the respondent. He alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties was solemnised at Rohtak on 25-4-1970 and the parties were Jain Hindus. It was alleged that the mother and the father of the respondent were in active collusion with the respondent and defrauded the petitioner. At the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness which comes within the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliable Water Supply Service of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR199(All)
Rastogi, J.1. These two references under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the CIT, Lucknow, relate to similar set of facts and may conveniently be disposed of together. The assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72, the corresponding accounting periods being financial years ending March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee is a limited company and undertakes contracts for construction of tube-wells and supplying of stores. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee debited in its books a sum of Rs. 1,29,321 on account of damages and penalty and claimed deduction of the same from the profits and gains of this year. It appears that these amounts were paid by the assessee to the Government departments from whom it had taken certain contracts for breach of the terms of the same and it was claimed by it before the ITO that these payments were not made in violation of any law and as such they were allowa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singer and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ401All
Yashoda Nandan, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioners in these four connected writ petitions have been working as Khalasis in the North-Eastern Railway and were posted at Signal and Tele-Communication at Gorakhpur, which is under the Varanasi Division. They claim that they had been appointed as casual Khalasis on permanent posts, had been continuously, without any break in service, working as such and had acquired the status of 'temporary employees'. They assert that by virtue of their continuous service for the requisite period, they had become entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to temporary railway servants and to absorption in the service of the Railways in a substantive capacity. Each one of the petitioners received notices purporting to be under Rule 149(6) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I--hereinafter referred to as the Code--read with Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--hereinafter called the Act--terminating their serv...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Vs. Rammoo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All353
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a defendant's revision filed against a judgment of the District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 22-3-1977, allowing a revision preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he did not pay the arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1968 despite the service of notice of demand on 11-4-1974, and, therefore, he was liable to ejectment. The suit was contested by the defendant. He claimed that before the filing of the present suit, the plaintiffs had filed Suit No. 338 of 1971. In the said suit, the defendant had deposited the rent for the period from 1-7-1968 to 31-8-1973, and that after having received the notice of demand, a reply was sent to the plaintiffs informing him of the said deposit. The remaining amount of rent, which had been claimed through the notice of demand, was remitted by Money Order, but as the plaintiffs refused to accept the s...
Tag this Judgment!Nafis Agha Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1097
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 407, Cr. P.C. for commitment of a case pending in the Court of the Magistrate to Sessions. The relevant facts are that a case under Section 324/326, I.P.C. was pending against the opposite party in the Court of Magistrate. It was alleged that the opposite party had thrown acid on the applicant with the result that he lost both of his eyes and suffered some other injuries. The Magistrate thought that the case was such as required deterrent punishment and he was not competent to do so, so he proceeded under Section 323, Cr. P.C. and committed the case to Sessions.2. The opposite party then filed a revision in this Court, No. 86 of 1978 contending that under the scheme of present Code of Criminal Procedure cases being triable either by Sessions or by Magistrate it was not open to the Magistrate to commit the case to Sessions, which was within its exclusive jurisdiction even on the ground that the case required more punishment t...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Lal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All279
Varma, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. declining to implead the petitioner in a Revision.2. Briefly stated, the material facts are these:--By resolution dated 6/7-7-1967, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) increased the strength of the Saharanpur-Gangoh-Jalabad Route from 45 to 90 stage carriages. In consequence of the increase in strength, the Transport Authority invited applications for the grant of permanent permits on the aforesaid route. In response the petitioner as well as some others made applications. The applications were published in the U. P. Gazette.3. The existing operators felt aggrieved by the increase in strength and they preferred a Revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The revision was allowed and the case was remanded to t...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Singh Vs. Teerath Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All351
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The substantial question of law on which notice was issued to the respondents at the hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the one contained in ground No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal which is to the effect that 'the court below had no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte even though defence had been struck off.'2. The appellant's defence was struck off by the trial court under Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by order dated 5th November, 1973. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:ORDER41-C is hereby allowed. The defence of the defendant is hereby struck off.The suit shall proceed ex parte against the defendant. Fix 29-11-1973 for ex parte hearing.'The parties had already gone to trial and the plaintiff's evidence had already been recorded and even an order passed on the 16th August, 1973 for the issue of a commission to the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hira Ice Candy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC158(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. This reference is being treated as a revision in view of Section 20(6-A) of U.P. Ordinance No. 27 of 1978.2. The assessee was a manufacturer of ice-candy and used to sell the same to hawkers, who thereafter effected retail sales. The accounts of the assessee were not accepted and the estimate of his turnover made. This turnover of ice-candy was taxed at the rate applicable for unclassified commodities. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, inasmuch as the estimated turnover was reduced. The rate of tax on this turnover was however maintained. The revising authority taking the view that ice-candy was cooked food, taxed it at the rate of 2 per cent.3. The process by which ice-candy is manufactured has not been set out by any of the authorities probably on the ground that the method is widely known. Ice-candy is manufactured by adding sweetening agents and colour to ice. The ice is then put in convenient small shapes and supplied in freezing boxes for sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »