Allahabad Court November 1981 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.
Smt. Malti Devi Vs. Phool Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All86
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a dependent's Second Appeal in a suit for partition. The appellant was the third defendant in the suit, and the appeal from the preliminary decree is confined to the claim made on her behalf that she is entitled to a provision being made for the payment of the sum of Rs. 11,600 by the joint family before the division of its property among the separating coparceners. The following are the relevant facts :--2. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are respectively respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Second Appeal in this Court, are the sons of Sri Shyam Lal. The third respondent, who was the second defendant, is the defendant appellant's husband. According to the plaintiff, the three brothers were living and messing separately, although in separate portions of the same ancestral house, and that the father Sri Shyam Lal died on the 6th Judy, 1959, and after him the management of the joint family property, namely, the three houses specified m Schedul...
M.P. Poddar and Company Vs. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC183(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee, who is the-petitioner here, had filed four revisions before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. These revisions were listed for hearing on 22nd February, 1973. The applicant's case is that its pairokar went to the court at 10 A.M. and found that the presiding officer was not sitting in the court. He then went to civil courts in connection with some other case, and came back again at 2 P.M. when he was told that the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, had left the court after finishing court work for that day. It is averred that the pairokar of the assessee went to the court of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on the next day, i. e., 23rd February, 1973, along with a letter of the counsel for the assessee to the effect that he could not attend the court on 22nd February, 1973, as he was ill. This letter was not entertained. Thereafter he sent an application on 26th February, 1973, which was received in the office of t...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Gupta Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC400(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. By this revision the Commissioner of Sales Tax challenges the correctness of the view taken by the Sales Tax Tribunal that purchase of old gold ornaments was not taxable under Section 3-AAAA as the purchases were made in the shape of bullion and were taxable as such. In treating old ornaments as bullion the Tribunal obviously committed an error of law. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G. S. Pai and Co. 1980 UPTC 524 (SC) it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that bullion in popular sense cannot include ornaments. It connotes gold or silver in the form of raw gold or silver or ingots or bars.2. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that as tax has been paid on the sale of ornaments the assessee was not liable to pay any tax on the purchase made by it. The argument suffers from fallacy. Admittedly, the assessee purchased old gold ornaments which were broken and unusable and thereafter sold them after cleaning and improving. In other words, from unu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›