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.
Mini Fertilizer (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC494(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the assessee under Section 35 of the Act. The assessee purchases sulphur rocks from Mines and Minerals Trading Corporation. He then manufactures sulphur rolls from it. The assessee solicited the opinion of the Commissioner of Sales Tax as to whether sulphur rolls sold by it were minerals covered by Notification No. ST-H-4949/X--10(2)-74 dated 30th May, 1975, or an unclassified item. The relevant part of the notification runs thus:1. All kinds of minerals, ores, metals and alloys except those included in any other notification issued under the Act. 2. The process of manufacturing sulphur rolls was not disclosed by the assessee, but the Commissioner of Sales Tax gathered it from a connected appeal and the method by which sulphur rolls are manufactured is not disputed in the present appeal. In order to manufacture sulphur rolls, rock sulphur is melted in a tank. The melted sulphur is then pumped into a refining pot where the sulphur evaporates in t...
Dalla Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All229
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for an inj unction and possession.2. The plaintiff claimed that the land in dispute was included in the chak allotted to him under the Consolidation operations. Defendants 3 to 5 had, in collusion with defendants 1 and 2, illegally constructed a drain over the land in dispute. The plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs. 100/-.3. Defendants 1 and 2 were the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, Canal Division. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 were the individuals who are alleged to have committed the wrongful act in collusion with the canal department authorities. The State as well as the canal Department filed one written statement while defendants 3 and 4 filed another written statement. The case of the State was that the land in dispute did not appertain to the plaintiff's chack and that the canal department was entitled to construct the drain. Defendants 3 and 4 pleaded that the plaintiff had no title to th...
The Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange (Pvt.) Ltd., Agra and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All332
ORDER1. The Bullion and Agricultural produce Exchange Private Limited, petitioner No. 1, obtained a certificate of registration on 15th Dec. 1962 under Section 14A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the Forward Markets Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') established under Section 3 of the said Act. This certificate entitled petitioner No. 1 to carry on business in Arhar Ki Chooni. Condition No. 2(ii) of the Certificate, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure 'I' to the writ petition, was to the following effect:'(ii) that the said association shall not conduct forward trading in any commodity other than those specified hereunder except with the previous approval of the Forward Markets Commission.'2. It appears that forward trading in Arhar Ki Chooni was banned by a notification issued under the Act and thereafter petitioner No. 1 made an application to the Commission for permission to carry on forward trad...
income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. GargidIn Jwala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)283; [1980]124ITR203(All)
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the ITO, Sita-pur and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow-I, Lucknow, pray for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated 30th September, 1974, passed by the Delhi Bench (B) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in a miscellaneous application filed by opposite party No. 1 under Section 35 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The petitioners have further prayed for such other and further orders as this court may, in the circumstances of the case, deem just and proper.2. The material facts leading up to this petition are that opposite party No. 1, M/s. Gargidin Jwala Prasad, a registered partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, for the assessment year 1948-49 filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 17,131. Petitioner No. 1 completed the assessment on a net loss of Rs. 8,382. As a result of the Voluntary Capital Disclosure Scheme launched by the Government of India,...
Radhey Lal Mannia Lal Vs. Bimal Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All84
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. A learned single Judge has referred the following question of law to a Division Bench:'Whether in a case where an accommodation is in the tenancy of two or more joint tenants, it is necessary that the notice terminating their tenancy must be addressed to all of them?'2. The facts as mentioned in the referring order are that the plaintiff-respondent sued for the eviction of theappellants. It was found that the appellants were joint tenants of the house in dispute. A notice demanding payment of arrears of rent and terminating their tenancy was addressed to Debi Ghulam Gupta, defendant-appellant No. 3 only though it was served on Ram Kishan Gupta, defendant-appellant No. 2.3. The submission on behalf of the tenants was that in order to be a valid notice to quit, it must be addressed to all the joint tenants though it may be served on one of them. In support, reliance was placed upon Liladhar Pandey v. L. Ramji Dass (1956 All LJ 650) and Nawabzada Muhammad Ishaq Khan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›