Allahabad Court January 1980 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.
Jokhan and ors. Vs. the Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All215
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is against the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation Allahabad, dated 27-9-1976 whereby the revisibn petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year Mahadeo, father of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7. Mewalal, opposite party No. 8, and Moti Lal were recorded as Bhumidhars of the disputed land. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, namely Jokhan, Ram Naresh and Panchu, had claimed 1/4th share in the disputed land being trans-feree of Mewalal, Opposite Party No. 8. 3. The contesting opposite parties Kailash and others had contested the claim of the petitioners on the allegations that the names of Mewalal and Moti Lal were fictitiously recorded over the disputed land and that the contesting opposite parties were sole tenure holders and that the claim of the petitioners was barred by res judi-cata. The Consoli...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. H.M. KamaluddIn Ansari and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All312
ORDERK.N. Seth, J.1. This revision by the Union of India and the Director General of Supplies and Disposal is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur, directing the applicants to release the amount of Rs. 99,776 forthwith in favour of the opposite party. The impugned order was passed on an application for injunction made under Section 41 of the second schedule of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Order 39, Rr. 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. in a petition pending before the learned Civil Judge under Section 20 of the Act.2. The opposite party M/s. H. M. Kamaluddin Ansari and Company, a partnership firm, carried on the business of manufacture and sale of various items of webbing and web equipments. The firm and the Director of Supplies and Disposal, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, and the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi for and on behalf of the Union of India entered into contracts No. A/T No. KAN/109-J/KP-5/98/HMK/ 87-PAO...
Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All203
K.M. Dayal, J. 1. The present second appeal had been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and restraining the defendants from excluding their Chak from the scheme Osrabandi of outlet No. 10 of the Canal in dispute. The trial Court found that the plots of the plaintiff were not included in the Scheme of the outlet No. 10 concerned and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court gave a finding that the subsequent papers filed by the State were not reliable and the Court below was of the opinion that the plots of the plaintiffs were being irrigated from the outlet No. 10. It also gave a finding that the plaintiff had irrigated his plot for four Fasals from Rabi 1971 and onwards. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Clause 4 of the Para 309 of the Manual of Orders of the Irrigation Department. It is quoted in the order of the lower Appellate Court. It is as follows:'Provided that no area shall be excluded for the reasons given in the items above, if it has bee...
Raj Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Smt. Jagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All225
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This first appeal by Raj Kumar Jain and Iswar Kumar Jain sons of Kailash Chandra defendant No. 1 is directed against the judgment and decree of the 1st Civil Judge, Meerut dated 11th February 1976, de- creeing the plaintiff's suit for a declara-tion that the probate dated 26th October 1961 had no effect on the plaintiffs who were the owners of the property in suit, 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by Ugra Sen son of Janki Das (plaintiff No. 1) Smt. Jag-wanti, widow of Kesho Ram another son of Janki Das (plaintiff No. 2). Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Prem Chandra, Kumari Kamata Devi, Kumari Usha Devi, Kumari Nammo Rani Mahesh, children of Kesho Ram (plaintiff Nos. 3 to 8), on 15th October 1962. The plaintiff set up the following pedigree:-- BANSHIDHAR | _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | |Banarsi Das Smt. Asharfi Smt.Bisso Smt. Saggo=Ganesh | = Janki Das =Shuganchand Lal(husband) | (husba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Steels
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(All)354; [1980]124ITR47(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It relates to the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee is a partnership firm which was formed on September 1, 1969, for running a re-rolling mill and for manufacture, purchase and sale of certain kinds of iron and steel. A partnership instrument was drawn up on September 15, 1970. The partners are Smt. Sabaz Mala Jain and Sarvasri Sushil Chand Jain, Satish Chand Jain, Ramesh Chand Jain and Anil Agarwal. The accounts were to be closed on the 31st of March each year and for the year under consideration the accounts were closed on March 31, 1971. The assessee filed an application for registration along with a certified copy of the partnership deed on March 16, 1971. The ITO refused to register the firm on the grounds that the assessee had not applied for registration in the proper and the prescribed form, that the original partnership deed had not been filed within the prescribed time, that there was no mutual ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(All)131; [1980]123ITR911(All); [1980]4TAXMAN1(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the question referred for opinion is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction of penalty of Rs. 50,651 in assessment year 1967-68 and Rs. 67,801 in assessment year 1968-69 '2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cloth. It follows the calendar year as its year of account. During the years under consideration, the assessee was recognised as a registered user of trade mark No. 100387 (Sanforized) of M/s. Cluett Peabody & Company by the Government of India, vide Trade Mark Registry letter No. P.R. (RU-Sanforized)/2400 dated 26th November, 1962. One of the conditions laid down for the use of the aforesaid trade mark was the export of a certain percentage of sanforized fabrics manufactur...
Azizul Haq Kausar Naquvi and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All149; 1980CriLJ448
S.J. Hyder, J. 1. This is an application tinder Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 filed by Azizul Haq Kausar Naqvi and Inamul Haq Qadri. The applicants call in question the validity of the notification dated June 28, 1977 issued by the State Government forfeiting the book entitled 'Munaqib-e-Ahle Bait' (In Praise of the Members of the Household of the Holy Prophet). The said notification has been issued in the purported exercise of powers of the State Government under Section 95 of the said Code. The impugned notification, excluding the Schedule appended thereto, is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :--'Whereas it appears to the State Government that the Urdu Book entitled 'Manaquib Able-Bait' written by Maulana Azizul Haq Kausar Naqvi, Nzami published by 1 Maulvi Inamul Haq Kadri Siraji, 2 Dr. Haji AH Raza Qadiri Siraji, 3. Mohammad Yasin Khan, 4. Haji Bar-katullah Nakshband Kadiri Siraji and 5. Abdul Rashid Kadiri Siraji, printed at Ilmi Electric Machine Pr...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. H.M. Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC99(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. In these revisions filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act the following question of law has been raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned additional revising authority was legally justified to hold that 'sewai ki machine' was taxable as kitchen appliance under Notification No. S. T. 3115/X-900 (55)/67 dated 18th June, 1971, and not as 'machinery' taxable under Notification No. 7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965 ?2. There is no dispute on facts. It is admitted that the assessee is a manufacturer of sewai ki machine made of iron (machine for producing vermicelli). The only question is whether it is 'kitchen appliance' within the meaning of Notification No. S. T. 3115 dated 18th June, 1971, as otherwise it being an instrument whereby energy or force is transmitted and transformed from one point to another it would be machinery taxable under Notification No. 7098 dated 1st October, 1965....
Raja Ram Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All161
K.M. Dayal, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against a decree for rent, ejectment and damages passed against him by the lower appellate court.2. The present suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rupees 4,409/32 p., and damages at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month, was filed on the ground that the disputed accommodation was a post-1950 accommodation and, therefore, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent And Eviction Act, 1947 did not apply to the same. The defence was that the Act applied and the disputed accommodation was constructed prior to 31st of December, 1950. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that disputed accommodation was not proved to be a post-1950, construction and the rent of the accommodation was only Rs. 20/- per month and was never enhanced. The suit was, therefore, decreed for a sum atRs. 27/- as arrears of rent and in respect of other reliefs it was dismissed.3. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the tri...
Faqir Ram Vs. Failu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All171
ORDERK.M. Dayal, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court dismissing his suit for injunction against the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents were constructing a wall of their house adjoining the portion of the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff filed the suit claiming......injunction against the defendant-respondents that they could not raise the wall as some windows of his will be closed. The defendant-respondents claimed that the property of the plaintiff and the defendant, both belong to the same person and the plaintiff and the defendants were the tenants of the land on which their constructions stood. The land belonged to Raja Ausanganj and they were paying 'parjawati' to the landlord Raja Ausanganj. The defendants has purchased his house in the year 1963 and till that time that belonged to the landlord.1-A. The trial court framed issueNo. 1 as under;1. Whether the windows in sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »