Allahabad Court April 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.
M.L. John and Anr, Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(All)276; [1983]139ITR972(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. These three petitions under Article 226 are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ petition No. 523 of 1975 is by M.L. John and I.E. John. The two petitioners question the validity of the various reassessment orders under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the Excess Profits Tax Act, for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1947-48, as also that of the reassessment orders under the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1956-57, made in the case of the unregistered firms known as John Mills and Co. and John and Co. They pray that notices of attachment of movable and immovable properties for a realisation of the tax assessed under the impugned assessment orders be quashed and the respondents be restrained from taking any step to recover the said demands amounting to Rs. 26,72,662-66 from the petitioners.3. Writ Petitions Nos. 562 of 1975 and 790 of 1975 are by N.K. Patni and Munni Lal Mehra. By these petitions, the two petitioners also question the validity of the r...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(All)266; [1983]144ITR503(All)
Mahabir Singh, J.1. These revisions raise a common question of law and, therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The opposite party No. 1, Sita Ram, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for filing false returns of his income for the various years from 1957-58 onwards to 1963-64, and in each case he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. On appeals in all these seven cases, the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly, while maintaining the conviction of the opposite party No. 1, modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000 only. 4. The ITO, on whose complaint proceedings had begun in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed a revision in each case and it was contended that the modification of the sentence made by the learned sessions judge was illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It was pointed out that the minimum sentence of imprisonment would not ...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: 1985(20)ELT6(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. In the year 1960 the petitioner State of U.P. took on lease a glass-factory that was till then being run by M/s. Vibhuti Glass Works Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It manufactured glass bottles and supplied them of its customers after packing them in straw and gunny bags. It had o under the Central Excises and Salt Act, pay excise duty calculated on the basis of the value of the bottles manufactured by it. They petitioner claims that it calculated the value of the bottles manufactured by it by including the cost of packing charges as well and paid the excise duty calculated On 10th September, 1971 a Division Bench of Mysore High Court, in the case of M/s. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. V. Union of India-Writ Petition Nos. 548 and 3436 of 1970 held that while determining, for purposes of computation of excise duty, the value of the articles manufactured by Messrs Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. The Excise Authorities were not justified in inclu...
Abhinandan Kumar JaIn Vs. 4th Addl. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All347
N.D. Ojha, J.1. Respondent No. 2, who is the landlord of an accommodation, instituted a suit for ejectment of the petitioner, who was occupying the said accommodation as a tenant after determining his tenancy by serving upon him a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. On 27th April, 1977 an application was made by respondent No. 2 for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed breach of Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. inasmuch as he had not deposited the monthly rent regularly within the time prescribed by the said rule. The application was dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes, in whose Court the suit was pending on the ground that after the new amendment of the C.P.C. the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. 'stand no more'. On this view the Judge, Small Causes, did not go into the merits of the application made by respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 2, preferred a revision before the District Judge which was allowed by the IVt...
Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1350
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is a revision arising out of proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. initiated by the applicant.2. The applicant had alleged that he owned a field No. 175 which he had purchased from one Girwar a son of Narain Singh about four years back and that the way to his field had always been through the fields of opposite parties numberings 202, 203, 224 and 225. The opposite parties, howeyer, blocked the way to his field by erecting a wall between his field and plot No. 202. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pratapnagar, district Tahri called for a report from the Supervisor Kanungo. Bis report favoured the allegations made by the applicant. Accordingly ha passed a preliminary order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why obstructions alleged by them may not be removed.3. Opposite parties appeared and alleged that there was no public right of way....As the opposite parties denied the existence of public right of way through their ...
Ram Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All250
K.N. Singh, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court referred these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for hearing to a larger Bench as there was conflict in the two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the question as to whether land could be requisitioned under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, for the purpose of constructing a drain.2. The petitioners' land in all the three petitions was requisitioned under Section 3 of the U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of constructing a drain to facilitate the flow of flood water in the rural areas to avoid water logging causing damage to the crops and other property of the residents of the area. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the requisition proceedings by means of these petitions on the ground that under the provisions of the Act, the petitioners' land could be requisitioned for purpose which was temporary...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›