Skip to content

Allahabad Court November 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.

Nov 03 1980

Kailash Chandra Agarwal Vs. Subhash Chand Satish Chand Viyopari and or ...

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-03-1980

Reported in: AIR1981All112

Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 3368.12 P. on account of unpaid price of a wagon-load of soap-stone amounting to Rs. 3187.62 P. Rs. 20 as expenses on travelling, Rs. 7.50 as cost of notice and Rs. 153 as interest. The two courts below have found that the plaintiff did supply the goods to the Firm defendant-respondent No. 1, and the defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who were the proprietors and partners thereof; that the whole of the amount claimed on account of the unpaid price of a wagon of soap-stone was due and payable; but that the Agra courts had no jurisdiction inasmuch as no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen at Agra. In arriving at the last finding and the finding that defendant-respondent No. 2 Pooran Chand, who is the father of the defendants-respondents Nos. 3 and 4, was not liable, the two courts below have found that the signatures on the Order Form, Ext. 5, were not proved to be those of Pooran C...


Nov 03 1980

Govind Prasad Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-03-1980

Reported in: (1981)20CTR(All)168; [1981]127ITR642(All); [1981]5TAXMAN325(All)

H.N. Seth, J.1. In connection with the estate duty assessment concerning the estate of late Shahu Jagdish Prasad, Sri Govind Prasad, the accountable person, claimed that as the amount of estate duty payable in respect of the estate left by the deceased was a charge on the said estate, it had to be taken into account while determining the market value of the estate. He further claimed that in any case the estate duty leviable on the estate of the deceased being a charge on the estate left by the deceased was an incumberance which had to be allowed as a deduction under Section 44of the E.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), while determining the taxable value of the estate for the purposes of estate duty. The claim made by the accountable person was rejected by the Asst. Controller and the order passed by him was in this regard eventually upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the accountable pe...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial