Allahabad Court March 1979 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.
Chandrapal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1437
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. Opposite Parties Dori, Deep Chand and Lohrey were convicted under Section 323/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rupees 100/- each by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mathura on 27-6-1978. Complainant Chandra Pal filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Mathura under Section 397, Criminal P.C. praying that the sentence of fine imposed upon the opposite parties be enhanced. The Sessions Judge being in doubt whether the Court of Session has the power to enhance the sentence while hearing revision petitions had made a reference to this Court under Section 395(3), Criminal P.C. seeking its directions.2. I have heard counsel for the State and have also perused the referring order. I have also perused the various provisions of the Cr. P.C. and a decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in 1977 Cri LJ 1666 Prabhudas Chhanganlal v. Babubhai Virabhai Miseria.3. In the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court the view taken was that the Sessions Ju...
Amar Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1221
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. Hence this revision.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case a sample of emarti was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant. He paid Rs. 4.80 paise and the total quantity purchased was 600 Grams. This sample was divided into 3 separate phials. One of the phials in the possession of the Food Inspector was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was coloured. with an unpermitted coal tar dye, namely matanial yellow dour index of 1956 No. 13065. On receipt of the obove report sanction for prosecution was obtained. The applicant has been prosecuted and convicted on the above facts. Both...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the ElgIn Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1979
Reported in: 1990LC278(Allahabad); 1980CENCUS17D; 1979(4)ELT640(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the Elgin Mills Company Ltd, against the Union of India, in suit No. 87 of 1967 a decree for recovery of Rs. 34,840.60 said to have been paid in excess by the plaintiff on account of Excise duty on cloth was prayed for. In suit No. 37 of 1967 a decree for recovery of Rs. 41,112.65 on account of Excise duty paid during the period 3.1.1963 to 10.9.1963 was claimed. In the former suit it was alleged that by Notification No. 111/62, dated 13th June, 1962 the Government of India enforced certain rates of Excise duty on gray cloth and processed cloth. This notification was enforced with effect from 24th April, 1962. A clarification of the said notification was given by the Government of India, Department of Revenue by letters No. P4/16162CXVH, dated 11th July, 1962 addressed to all Collectors, Central Excise, that the rate of Excise duty on bleached process cloth was higher than that for gray cloth of the corresponding Qualit...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vanaspati Trading Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC491(All)
C.S.P. Singh J.1. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the Revising Authority, Gorakhpur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of gunny bags was liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 ?2. The assessee dealt in foodgrains, oil-seeds, and also acted as purchasing agent for ex-U.P. buyers. It purchased foodgrains and oil-seeds for ex-U.P. principals and, thereafter, packed and stored the commodities in its own gunny bags before sending them to its principals. The ex-U. P. principals were charged separately for the gunny bags. The assessee's contention that the sale of gunny bags was complete in U. P. and, as such, taxable under the U.P. Act, did not find favour with the Sales Tax Officer, who treated it as an inter-State sale. An appeal filed against the assessment, on this point, failed. The Judge (Revisions) has a...
income Tax Officer and anr. Vs. S. B. Singar Singh and Sons and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)272
1. JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, C.J. - M/s. S. B. Singar Singh & Sons (hereinafter called the assessee) were assessed to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting periods, ending, March 31. 1945 and March 31. 1946, under two assessment orders dated August, 26, 1949. The previous year 1936-37 was chosen by the assessee as his standard period. The profits of that year were Rs. 38,703/-. After deducting the profits of the standard year, the Excess Profits Tax Officer assessed the tax on the remaining amounts of profits. The excess profits tax thus assessed for the accounting years was to the tune of Rs. 1,06,181-05 and Rs. 48,978-00, respectively. In his orders, the assessing officer said that for reasons detailed in the earlier assessment orders no adjustments are made for capital variations in the standard period and the chargeable accounting period. These reason as given in the earlier assessment order dated October 30, 1947 pertaining to the chargeable accounting period endin...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All200
H.N. Seth, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th ofSept. 1967, passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria decreeing the suit filed by Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd., for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,860.94 Paise, the Union of India has come up in appeal before us.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on or about 29th Feb., 1952 one Oriental Transport Service, acting for and on behalf of and as agent of the plaintiff, Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd., handed over a consignment of Sugar Mills Machinery consisting of vacuum creating Unit to the Central Railway at Victoria Dock for being carried at 'Railway Risk' rate to Deoria Sadar, a station on the North Eastern Railway which is owned by Union of India. According to the plaintiff, the said consignment reached Deoria Sadar on or about 11th of July, 1952 in such a badly damaged and broken condition that the machinery had become totally useless. The plaintiff was thus deprived of the use of the said machinery ...
M.C. Khunnah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR414(All)
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by us in limine by our order dated 15th February, 1979, wherein we stated that we shall give our reasons in support of the order subsequently and we are proceeding to do so.2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act--hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'--for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. He filed his returns for the aforesaid assessment years and declared the value of three of his immovable properties consisting of land and buildings at Rs. 3,24,509. One of the three items of the properties disclosed by him in his return was Luxmi Building, 16/103, M.G. Marg, Kanpur. The WTO (respondent No. 3) passed an order making a reference for valuation of the aforesaid property to respondent No. 2, who is Valuation Officer I, .Income-tax Department, Kanpur. The remaining two properties were referred for valuation to separate Valuation Officers and we are not concerned in this petition ...
Prabhu Dayal Vs. Ram Nik Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All193
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This is a judgment debtor's execution first appeal. Originally two persons namely, Ram Nik Lal and Jadunath Singh were arrayed as respondents. Later respondent No. 1 died and the whereabouts of his heirs, if any, could not be traced out and eventually his name was deleted by my order dated 28-7-1978. He was the decree-holder and also auction-purchaser of a part of the property in dispute. In the circumstances the appeal abates against respondent No. 1, Ram Nik Lal but it survives against respondent No. 2 Jadunath Singh. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for respondent No. 2. 2. In this case three points were urged before me on behalf of the appellant. The first question raised was the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. The decree-holder Ram Nik Lal had filed a suit in the court at Kanpur against the appellant Prabhu Dayal and had obtained an ex parte decree in execution of which the houses and land of the ob...
Mitthoo Lal Vs. Gopal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All226
P.N. Goel, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1968 passed by the Civil Judge, Etawah, confirming the preliminary decree for partition dated 10-7-1967 passed by 1st additional Munsif, Etawah in Orignal Suit No. 489 of 1963.2. One Parmeshwari Das had 5 sons including Tara Chand, father of the respondent Gopal Chand, Mitthoo Lal, appellant and Shambhu Dayal. The respondent claimed half share in 3 shops detailed at the foot of the plaint situate in the town of Etawah. The property in dispute was valued at Rs. 7680/- as found by the Additional Munsif in his order dated 10-9-1966. The respondent, therefore, valued the suit at Rs. 3840/-. These shops were purchased from one Abdul Rahman by sale deed dated 20-10-1930 Ex. A-19. This sale deed is in favour of the appellant and his brother Tara Chand, father of the respondent.3. In the plaint the boundaries of the shops are mentioned as:East-- shop of Subedar West-- Stairs and shop of Durga Swarup Nort...
N.N. Samanta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)293; [1983]144ITR130(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The petitioner had some income-tax liability outstanding against him. The ITO issued a recovery certificate. The Tax Recovery Officer executed it by attaching and selling house No. 20, Kavi Kalidas Road, Dehradun, together with 5 bighas of land, etc. At the auction this property was sold for Rs. 99,000. It appears that out of the sale proceeds the TRO paid out the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate as well as the costs of the auction. The question was as to what should happen to the balance. The petitioner, who was the defaulter, applied for the refund of the balance to him. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 also applied to the TRO that the balance be returned to them because they were the mortgagees of the property which was sold and of which the defaulter petitioner was the mortgagor. The TRO issued notice to the petitioner to show cause against this application of the mortgagees. The petitioner filed objections claiming that the TRO should not go into this ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »