Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All166
K.M. Dayal, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below dismissing their suit. Three plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 by one Shiv Nath Singh. The admitted case of the parties is that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and Ram Singh were co-tenure holders. Smt. Bhagwani inherited the property on death of Ram Singh as married sister under Section 171 U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Both the courts below have given a finding of fact that appellant No. 1 Smt. Batashi had no right or title in the disputed land. On the other hand plaintiffs Ram Gopal and Chaturi are admitted to be co-tenure-holders with Ram Singh having equal shares. After death of Ram Singh his sister Smt. Bhagwani inherited his l/3rd share under Section 171 U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Shiv Nath Singh giving out to be son of Ram Singh executed a sale-deed in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All168
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- as damages. The suit was dismissed by both the courts below. Hence the second appeal.2. The plaintiff owned a caterpillar type tractor which had chains instead of rubber wheels. The tractor was purchased by it in the year 1946, for Rs. 45,000. The plaintiff has a farm in village Kichha and another in the adjoining locality known as Lakhimpur Block. According to the plaintiff's case the tractor was on its way to its farm in the Lakhimpur Block. The gates of the railway level crossing were unlocked. There was no gateman present at that time and while the tractor was just about crossing the railway line, the Lucknow Kathgodam Express collided with it and threw it off at a distance of about 20 feet, causing serious damage to the tractor. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant Railway Administration was negligent in not making proper arrangements at the level crossing for the safety of the public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All316
A. Banerji, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,850/- as damages from the defendant-respondent firm was decreed by the trial Court with costs and pendente lite andfuture interest at the rate of 4% per annum. On appeal by the defendant the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The plaintiff aggrieved by the above decision has come up in appeal.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are as follows. A contract was entered into between the parties by means of a telegram for the purchase of 250 bags of peas at the rate of Rs. 37/- per bag, deliverable F.O.R. at Vizianagram, The buyer namely the defendant-respondent indicated in the telegram that the peas should be triable at 6 1/2. This contract was arrived at on the 3rd February, 1962. On the same day a wagon was indented by the plaintiff for the despatch of goods. He received the wagon on 14th February, 1962 and loaded the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1981]127ITR773(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a composite reference, one question at the instance of the assessee, and the other at the instance of the department. The two questions referred are :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is the income assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' and not the income from business ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salaries enjoyed by Seth Puran Chand and Shri Ram Niranjan from the Kundan Sugar Mills P. Ltd. constituted their individual income '2. Coming to the first question, which is at the instance of the assessee, the relevant facts are these : An HUF owned a sugar mill being the Kundan Sugar Mills. In 1951, there was a partition in the family and the business was being run by the firm. The firm had three partners, two of whom represented their sma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1980]123ITR907(All); [1980]4TAXMAN345(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the, following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no fresh opportunity was required to be given to the assessee before the imposition of penalty even though after the assessee had submitted his reply to the show-cause memo, the assessment had been revised under Section 154 and the penalty should be upheld, if at all, on the basis of the revised order ?'2. The facts necessary for answering this question are these :The assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1965-66 on 24th September, 1968, on an income of Rs. 31,845, the returned income being Rs. 26,130. As a result of this order, an amount of Rs. 1,024 became due to the assessee and the assessee was informed of this by notice under Section 156. It appears that there had been delay on the part of the assessee in filing his return and a notice under Section 271(1)(a) was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1980All385
Hari Swarup, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :--'Whether Sub-section (2) of Section 90-A of the Evidence Act as amended by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act controls the operation of Section 90(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act as amended by the said U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954.' The question arose in the following circumstances :--A certified copy of a registered will was pressed in evidence in the case and a presumption about its execution, attestation and writing was sought to be raised by reason of Section 90(2) of the Evidence Act. The Civil Judge did not accept the plea on the ground that the provisions of Section 90 were not attracted. The learned single Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing was of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the presumption could be raised, meaning thereby that the conditions contemplated by Section 90 of the Act were present. The other objection whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(All)358; [1980]124ITR58(All); [1980]4TAXMAN199(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ,the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,02,402 or any other sum as a deduction in the computation of its business income on the ground that a liability had accrued on the part of the assessee to provide for the payment of gratuity to its employees under the Sugar Industry Workmen Gratuity Scheme '2. The assessment year involved in the present reference is 1962-63, for which the previous year ended on 30th September, 1961. In the relevant period, the company owned two sugar mills, one at Pilibhit and the other at Kashipur. It claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 25,000 in the Kashipur unit, and a sum of Rs. 45,000 for the Pilibhit unit under the head ' Gratuity '. The ITO, on the view that the amounts claimed were unascertained liabilities, allowed an amount of only Rs. 8,550 which has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1980]124ITR411(All); [1980]4TAXMAN16(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, has referred the following four questions for the opinion of this court. '1. Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in allowing the assessee's claim in respect of interest on the arrears of sales tax in computing the assessee's income for the year under consideration ? 2. Whether the interest on the outstanding balance of sales tax was an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act ? 3. Whether there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that the liability of Rs. 69,383 for damages had crystallised in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under consideration ? 4. Whether the claim of the assessee for damages could be held to be an allowable deduction in computing the assessee's income liable to assessment for the year under consideration ' 2. So far as the first two questions are concerned, they are clearly covered by the decision of this court in the case of Saraya Sugar Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1980]46STC112(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. These two revisions, filed by the assessee, may conveniently be disposed of together. They relate to the assessments for 1973-74 and 1974-75 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee carries on business in manufacture and sale of crushed bones. The accounted version was accepted by the assessing authority. The assessee's claim was that crushed bones come in the category of fertilisers, the turnover of which is exempt from sales tax, and so no tax could be imposed on the assessee. This contention was not accepted by the assessing officer nor by the appellate and the revising authorities.2. The question that thus falls for consideration is as to whether crushed bones come within the category of fertilisers. It may be noted that the crushed bones which the assessee manufactures and sells range in size between |' to f'. In other words, as I would have occasion to show later, the assessee does not deal in bone-meal but deals in crushed bones.3. Entry No. 11 of the Fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1981CriLJ74
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is a revision by the wife against the order passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision of the opposite party and setting aside the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the Judicial Magistrate.2. The relevant facts are that in a petition filed by the applicant for main-1 tenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. an agreement had taken place between the parties and the court had accordingly passed an order to opposite party to pay Rs. 30 per month as maintenance.3. On 21-10-75 the applicant moved an application for execution for recovery of one year's maintenance. The opposite party filed objection that the compromise on the basis of which order of maintenance was passed was obtained by fraud and the applicant was leading a life of adultery. He also alleged that as they had agreed to live separately by mutual consent she was not entitled to get maintenance.4. The learned Magistrate rejected the case of the opposite party abo...
Tag this Judgment!