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.
Bansilal Sahu Vs. the Prescribed Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All194
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. A Division Bench felt unable to follow the law laid down by another Division Bench in Smt. Sarju Devi v. Prescribed Authority, Kanpur (1977 All LJ 251). It has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench. 'Whether the Prescribed Authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Clause (rr) of Section 43 (2) of the 1972 Act, has jurisdiction to take subsequent events into consideration or to modify the permission granted under Section 3 of the 1947 Act and to evict a tenant from a portion of the building even though permission may have been granted in respect of the entire building?'2. Section 43 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 deals with repeal and savings. By Sub-section (1), it repeals the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Sub-section (2) provides :-- '(2) Notwithstanding such repeal --(rr) Where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtained on any grou...
Mithu Lal Vs. Smt. Chunni Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All204
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant. The plaintiff had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter the defendant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act he obtained permission from the trial Court for furnishing security for the decretal amount. The defendant furnished the security demanded, and the restoration application was thereafter considered on merits. The trial Court passed an order the relevant portion of which runs as under :--'The application is within time. Allowed on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs. The applicant to deposit the entire decretal amount in Court within 7 days or show the tender if he has deposited rent under Section 17 or under Order 15, Rule 5.'2. Thereafter the defendant made an application on 29th July 77 stating that the decretal amount had been deposited and a further amount ofRs. 230/- had also bee...
Laxmi NaraIn Anand Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All198; [1980]46STC71(All)
ORDER1. Prompted with equitable consideration, in proceedings arising out of escaped assessment, a Division Bench of this Court in Kalpanath Singh v. Commr. of Sales Tax (1978 UPTC 1) ruled, 'if an assessee acquires knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings and acting on such knowledge appears and acts in aid of the proceedings before the assessing authority, he cannot be allowed to challenge the proceedings on the ground that no notice was served or that it was not validly served on him under rule 77. As one of us felt difficulty in following it in the abovenoted reference where the question referred was as under this Full Bench was constituted:'Whether under these circumstances the service of notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act on a stranger would be deemed to have been properly and validly effected on the petitioner and the learned Sales Tax Officer would acquire jurisdiction to finalise the proceedings under Section 21 under the circumstances of the case?' The que...
Surendra Nath Dubey Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All136
H.N. Seth, J.1. These two connected civil revisions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these revision applications are that on 4th of March, 1976 opposite party Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed a suit against the applicant for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 2978.50 as arrears of rent etc. and future mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 95/- per month.3. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute and was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. Over and above this, the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs. 15/- per month towards electricity charges and further a sum of Rs. 5/- per month as water-tax, The defendant was in arrears for the period 1st of October, 1973 to 30th of March, 1975 (the date on which the defendant's tenancy is said to have been determined) and he did not pay the electricity charges for the period 1st of October, 1973 to 27th of September, 1974. Besides...
Kundan Lal Vs. Surendra Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All205
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. A suit for partition was decreed. The defendants desired to file an appeal. They filed an application for permission to file the appeal as an indigent person under Order 44, C. P. C. It appears that the application for permission was not properly verified. The plaintiff-applicant raised an objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to permit the defendants to rectify the defect. The Court overruled this objection and allowed the defendants to verify the application. He then fixed a date for enquiry into pauperism of the defendants. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. Learned counsel submits that the amendment introduced by the Allahabad High Court to Rule 5 of Order 33, C. P. C., is no longer applicable and may be deemed to have been repealed by Section 97 of Central Amending Act of 1976.2. Order 33, Rule 2, C. P. C. provides that an application for permission to sue as an indigent person, shall be signed and verified i...
State of U.P. Vs. Vishwanath Kapoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ494
T.S. Misra, J.1. In the instant revision the learned single Judge felt that the law laid down in Madho Ram v. State 1966 All WR HC 421 needs reconsideration. The following question has thus been referred to us:Whether a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, is a body created by or under State law within the meaning of sub-clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code ?Sub-clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:Twelfth-Every person-(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fee or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;(b) in the service or pay of a local authority a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of the wordings of sub-clause (b) of sub-clause 12th of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, we have reframed the question as under:Whether a Co-opera...
Sushil Kumar Srivastava and ors. Vs. Principal, Industrial Training In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All194
T.S. Misra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises in the following circumstances:--2. There are 67 Industrial Training Institute in Uttar Pradesh in which there are 26,560 sanctioned seats in 43 Engineering and Non-Engineering Trades, Such an Industrial Training Institute also exists at Faizabad where training is imparted in 11 Engineering and Non-Engineering Trades. Three hundred and ninety-two total seats are sanctioned for the Institute out of which 160 seats are sanctioned for the second year classes. In August 1970 admissions were required to be made only against 232 seats in ten Trades vide admission circular of the Directorate of Training and Employment, Lucknow Dated 26th June, 1979. The State Government has appointed an Advisory Committee vide G. O. No. 2278/36.6.36 (T)/79 dated 26th June, 1978 to study the need of the industry in the region and suggest measures to adopt the training programmes to meet local requirements. The functions of this Advisor...
Smt. Madora Bibi and anr. Vs. Mohd. Mateen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All206
R.S. Singh, J. 1. This is the defendant's appeal filed against the decree and judgment dated 15-5-1972 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, reversing the decree of the trial Court and decreeing the suit. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that defendants-appellants brought execution No. 5/59 against respondent No. 2 for possession of the premises in suit for satisfying her decree in Suit No. 1057/59 (Madaro Bibi v. Abdul Latif) of the Court of 3rd Addl. Munsif, Kanpur. The Amin went for delivery of the possession. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 resisted the said execution on 21-1-1959. The Court Amin made report to this effect to the executing Court. After expiry of 30 days; defendants-appellant (decree-holder) moved another application before the executing Court for giving possession through the Commissioner. The Commissioner went on the spot for delivery of possession, but this time again, the plaintiff-respondent resisted the said execution. On 7-2-59, report was given to ...
Jagan Nath Vs. Har Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All139
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for recovery of a loan of Rs. 10,000/- with interest in the sum of Rs. 1,500/- up to the date of the suit.2. The plaint allegations were that the loan was advanced on 1st June. 1963 and was re-payable in ten annual instalment of Rs. 1000/- with interest at the rate of 75 paise percent per month. It was pleaded that the defendant did not pay anyinstalment, hence the suit, which was filed on 5th March, 1965. A document Ext. 3, purporting to witness the loan was filed with the plaint. A reference to the document was incorporated by an amendment of the plaint which was made later on, The defendant denied the loan and the document. Experts were examined from both the sides. It was also contended by the defendant that the document was otherwise too inadmissible in evidence for it purported to be a mortgage-deed but had not been registered.3. The trial court overruled the defendant's objection as to the admissibility of the doc...
Ramji Das Laxman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: [1980]122ITR732(All); [1980]4TAXMAN28(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee claimed deduction of interest paid by it on loans advanced by certain persons to it on hundis. It proved the loans by producing the hundi khokhas which contained the signatures of the creditors, debtors and bankers. It had also established that interest was paid through account payee cheques. After enquiry, the ITO accepted its case and allowed deduction of interest. 2. Subsequently, the ITO received information from the ITO, Hundi Circle, Bombay, that there was a regular racket there, whereby certain persons lent their names and did not advance any money. Having reason to believe that the hundi loans claimed by the assessee were bogus, he reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 by applying Section 147, Clause (a), of the I.T. Act. The assessee appeared and took up the plea that the reopening was based on mere change of opinion and that the ITO had no material in his possession on the basis of wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »