Allahabad Court December 1979 Judgments
De-smet (India) Private Ltd. Vs. B.P. Industrial Corporation (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All253
H.N. Seth, J.1. This first appeal by De-Smet (India) Private Ltd. defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of second Additional Civil Judge, Agra dated 2-6-1975, decreeing the suit filed by B. P. Industrial Corporation (P.) Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 100,000 with proportionate costs. There is also before us a cross-objection by the plaintiff praying that the decree passed by the trial court should be modified so as to decree its entire claim for a sum of Rupees 116,000.2. B. P. Industrial Corporation (P.) Ltd. filed Suit No. 51 of 1966 in the court of the second Additional Civil Judge, Agra for recovery of Rs. 116,000 from the defendant De-Smet (India) Private Ltd. Briefly stated the case set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff wanted to set up a continuous solvent extraction plant, and with that end in view, it in the month of June 1964, invited quotation from the defendant. The defendant vide its quotation dated 18th June 1964 offered to supply to the plaintiff De-Smet...
Tag this Judgment!Zargham Abbas and anr. Etc. Vs. Hari Chand Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All259
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. Each one of the sixrespondents in the six appeals filed a suit each against the defendant-appellants for damages for malicious prosecution. All the six suits were consolidated by the trial court and decreed by a common judgment. Hari Chand's suit, being Suit No. 149 of 1969 of the court of IV Additional Munsif, Meerut, was treated to be the leading case. As against the sum of Rs. 1,500 claimed by Hari Chand as damages the amount awarded to him by the trial court's decree was Rs. 675. Satya Prakash was awarded Rs. 600 as against the claim of Rs. 1,000 in his Suit No. 139 of 1960. Chuttan Lal, Sunder Lal and Ghasi Ram, plaintiffs in Suit Nos. 138 of 1969, 140 of 1969 and 141 of 1969, were each awarded Rs. 340 as against the claim of Rs. 600 in their respective suits. Raja Ram, plaintiff in Suit No. 142 of 1969, was awarded Rs. 250 as against the claim of Rs. 700 made by him. The lower appellate court confirmed the decrees in all the six suits. Hence the six second app...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Pal Vs. Ved Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All268
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of certain amount which was due to the plaintiff from the defendant under an award said to have been given by the Arbitrators in a dispute of accounts between the parties.2. The suit of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff and the defendant, who are brothers, were carrying on business in the name of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Ved Prakash at Kanpur which was a registered firm. A dispute arose between the parties and, therefore, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Lalla Raliya Ram and Banarsi Das for deciding the matter through arbitration. The arbitrators went through the accounts of the firm and heard the parties and gave their award on 4th May 1966. The award was accepted by the parties and in token of their acceptance they had put their signatures on the award. It is said that the award given by the arbitrators was in the nature of an agreement between the parties. According to the award, a sum of Rs. 24...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chanda Devi and anr. Vs. Dr. Tara Pad Sinha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All270
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. The point which has arisen for determination in these appeals is as to whether the tenants Sita Ram (since dead and his heirs brought on record) and Ram Sewak had incurred forfeiture of their tenancy and had become liable for ejectment under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The material facts may be briefly stated : Dr. Tara Pad Sinha and his wife Smt. Savitri Devi brought two suits against Sita Ram and Ram Sewak respectively with similar allegations. It was stated that they were the owners of house No. 92 situate in Mohalla Sainyer Gate, Jhansi and the defendants aforesaid were tenants in a room in the lower portion and a room in the first floor of the house in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/-and 11/- respectively. They were separately tenants of the two rooms since the time of their predecessors-in-title. At the time of the purchase of the house bv the present plaintiffs the defendants promised to pay rent regularly at the said rate but they com...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dayal Hingwasia and anr. Vs. Municipal Board, Rath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All143
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This appeal hag been instituted by the defendants against whom a suit has been filed by the Municipal Board, Rath for the recovery of a sum of money on the basis of the contract which was given to the defendant in a public auction for the recovery of Tehbazari. The contract admittedly was taken by the defendants for Rs. 37,800/- but they did not pay part of the contracted money for the recovery of which this suit has been filed.2. The defendants contested the suit and apart from other pleas they contended that the contract in their favour was invalid and could not be enforced by the plaintiff. The contract was invalid as the same was not registered. Apart from this, the defendants also contended that due to certain lapses on the part of the plaintiff a loss of Rs. 5,500/- was caused to the defendant and for this reason the plaintiff was not entitled to claim- any amount. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appeal by the defendants also met the same fate in...
Tag this Judgment!Philips India Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1979
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT263(All)
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Mandamus seeking a prayer for quashing the notices dated December 10, 1975, and June 7, 1976, sent by the Superintendent, Central Excise Shikohabad, District Mainpuri calling upon the petitioner Company to obtain Central Excise Licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The petitioner is a Company incoporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business of manufacture and sale of diverse electrical and electronic articles, including lamps and components. It has its own factories at various places in the country where the goods are manufactured: The petitioner holds licences in respect of excise goods which are manufactured by it at various factories. It pays excise duty on such goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Besides manufacturing its own lamps at its factory at Thana (Bombay), the petitioner also purchases e...
Tag this Judgment!Kesheo Saran Vs. Jagdish Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All146
K.M. Dayal, J.1. The present secondappeal has been filed by the judgment debtor against the order of the court below for execution of the decree. The decree holder respondent, predecessor-in-interest Lala Faquir Chand filed Suit No. 234 of 1959, against the appellant for mandatory injunction to restore a portion of the stair case and roof which had fallen down or were pulled down by the defendant.2. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the Sahdari on the first floor of the accommodation as well as a portion of ground floor. The approach to that Sahdari from the ground floor was through a staircase which was in the ground floor portion of the defendant and on roof of the defendant. He claimed that he was the dominant owner and the defendant was a servient owner and he had a right to enjoy the easement without any interruption. He claimed that the defendant demolished his house and thus the roof and the upper portion of the staircase which was owned by the defendant also fell d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mubarakali Khan and Mujahid Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)253; [1980]123ITR101(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has sought our opinion on the following two questions :' 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the preparation of bins from tendu leaves and tobacco can be called manufacturing or processing of goods within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was an industrial undertaking ' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee during these years was a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. Mubarak Ali & Co. and M/s. Mujahid Ali & Co. These firms were engaged in manufacture of biris, and the assessee's contention was that, as these firms were an industrial undertaking as defined in the Explanation to Section 5(1)(xxxi), the assessee's share in the aforesaid firm wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal and ors. Vs. Hari Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All180
ORDERAmitav Banerji, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for partition of a house and mesne profit has been dismissed by both the courts below. The suit property is a Chabutra. The trial court after considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs could not prove the alleged ancestral nature of the property or even its partition and the disputed Chabutra being allotted to their share. He also held that the plaintiffs were never in possession thereof and the defendants had been in exclusive and adverse possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, for the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the property in suit.2. The lower appellate court on an appraisal of the evidence on record and after considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the suit property ever pertained to any join...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Jwala Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC410(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. These two revisions filed by the assessee, M/s. Sita Ram Jwala Prasad, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arise out of interrelated facts and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The short question that falls for consideration in these revisions is as to whether the admitted tax for the purposes of Section 9 of the Act includes interest also and further whether the appeals could be entertained when admittedly the admitted tax was deposited before the filing of the appeals but the interest was deposited afterwards.2. These revisions relate to the assessment year 1972-73. In the first revision the period involved is from 1st April, 1972, to 5th November, 1972, and in the second revision from 6th November, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. The admitted tax for these periods was Rs. 24,396.76 and Rs. 12,027.79 and interest was Rs. 2,640 and Rs. 760 respectively. The assessee had deposited the admitted ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »