Allahabad Court February 1981 Judgments
Bans Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All280
ORDERR.S. Singh, J. 1. This is one of the oldest cases of this State which has come before this Court in second round. Original suit was filed in the year 1933 which was disposed of by this Court in first appeal on 11-8-1976. Thereafter execution proceedings started which were dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr on 31-3-1978. The decree-holders have challenged the order of the Additional Civil Judge in revision before this Court. 2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the decree sought to be executed which was finally passed by this Court in first appeal is for possession over the vacant land and also over the constructed portions after demolishing the constructions. The decree is also for mesne profits from the date of the decree in the suit. Soon after the passing of this decree by this Court one of the decree-holders Sri Shiv Raj Singh sold his share in the properties in dispute in favour of Smt. Rajni Singh, wife of Sri Suresh. Chandra Singh, one of the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. B.C. Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas835(All); [1983]144ITR496(All); [1981]7TAXMAN213(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. On November 28, 1979, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Meerut, filed two complaints under Sections 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act, 1961, against nine persons, the ninth of which was M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., Modinagar, through its chairman, Sri K.N. Modi. One complaint related to the assessment year 1965-66, while the other related to the year 1966-67. It was alleged that M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., accused No. 9, filed returns of its income for the aforesaid assessment years wherein deliberately excessive expenditure was claimed in the form of payment of agency commission to several firms. The assessments were completed on March 24, 1970, for the assessment year 1965-66, and on March 26, 1971, for the year 1966-67. For both the years the excessive claim was disallowed on the finding that the firms to whom the agency commission was alleged to have been paid were bogus and non-existing firms to the knowledge of the concerned persons. In para. 30 of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT711(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. Petitioner Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, manufactures glass sheets which are chargeable to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act at a rate depending on their value and is in this regard governed by the procedure laid down in Chapter VII (Rule 173-A to Rule 173 RM) of the Central Excise Rules. It went into production of glass sheets on 3rd January, 1976 and on the same day it as required by Rule 173C, submitted its price list which was to remain operative till 16th January, 1976 before the proper officer for his approval. During this period the petitioner claims to have cleared five consignments of glass sheets in unwrapped condition. A dispute regarding inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of the goods of such consignment is still pending before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise.2. Thereafter the petitioner submitted, from time to time, a number of price lists up to 19th April, 1977 for approval of the proper officer. A perusal of...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan Tewari (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ram Samujh Tewari (Deceased) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All211
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land and Ghari in suit, detailed at the foot of the plaint, and in the alternative for possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but the lower appellate Court decreed for possession over the house and Ghari in suit as shown in the Commissioner's map paper No. 43-C by the letters B E D C and J K L I respectively, but the defendants were allowed two months' time to remove their structures on the site of the Ghari shown by the letters J D L I, failing which the plaintiffs could get the same removed by the process of Court The Commissioner's map was ordered to form part of the decree of the lower appellate Court. The point on which the parties were at issue was with reference to an earlier suit for partition being suit No. 339 of 1949 which had been filed by the plaintiffs and was decreed finally on 9-8-1952....
Tag this Judgment!Surajpati and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All265
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition is against the judgment of Shri Lalta Prasad, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, dated 28-4-1972, whereby the revision petitions filed by Mata Sewak and Rai Pati were allowed. 2. In this writ petition the only question under consideration is how further claim of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 is barred by Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Necessary facts relating to the question posed are as follows :-- 3. In the basic year the names of the petitioners were recorded over the disputed Khatas and the contesting opposite parties had claimed co-tenancy right in the same. The opposite parties Raj Pati, Ram Lakhan and Ram Shiro-mani in the present writ petition, had filed a suit under Sections 59/49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and had set up the following pedigree :-- SHEO DUTT |_______________________________________________ | | | Ram Tahal Sitaram Matroo=Mst. Majhari ___________________________|_______...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Shukla Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD556(All.)
1. By this appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of the order under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") passed by the Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, holding that the assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 19-12-1977 made by the ITO, Sultanpur, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The relevant facts bearing on the controversy may be noted : The assessee was the karta of the HUF and was a partner representing his family in Haribhanjan Lal Someshwar Prasad, Sultanpur, up to the assessment year 1975-76. On 1-4-1976, a partial partition amongst the members of the HUF with regard to the investment of the family in the aforesaid firm was effected and the various members of the assessee's family, consisting of himself, his wife and his son were allotted the following shares in the original capital of the family in the said firm :Shri Keshav Shukla 35,898.97Smt. Kalindi Shukla 35,898.97Shri Anil Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Parihar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All246
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 2. The plaint case in brief was that licence No. 6597 for a pistol of non-prohibited bore was granted to the plaintiff on 22nd Feb. 1964 by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. On 11-9-64, the plaintiff purchased a .25 bore pistol bearing No. 42114 from one Sri Viren-dra Singh, who was himself a licence-holder and owned the said pistol. However, the pistol had been illegally got deposited from Sri Virendra Singh under the directions of in-charge P. S. Samthor. The pistol was later on deposited in the Malkhana, Jhansi. Without revoking or cancelling the licence held by Sri Virendra Singh the pistol in question was forfeited. According to the plaintiff the direction to deposit the weapon in the Malkhana was absolutely illegal and Virendra Singh lasally continued to be its owner and was therefore, also entitled to sell the same. In 1964. the plaintiff applied for the re...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi Lal Vs. Jamuna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All324
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for accounts of the business of an alleged partnership although in the first relief claimed in the plaint a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,500/-has also been sought. The trial court de-creed the suit in two parts, by passing a final decree for recovery of Rs. 2500/-and by passing a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts against the defendant in respect of the Theka Business of Quraghar, Gorakhpur in terms of the Deed of Partnership, dated 21-8-52 Ex. 1. In the decree so passed the trial Court declared that the parties shall be entitled to profit and loss equally and to recover interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum on the advances, over and above the capital investment, and that the accounts and documents filed by the plaintiff-relating to the said Kuraghat business shall be deemed to be the accounts of the plaintiff and that the defendant shall also be entitled to furnish his own account books and statements of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. Brij Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All172
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against the dismissal of a petition filed by him under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code. The decree-holders had obtained a money decree for Rupees 16,800/- along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum against Durga Prasad the judgment-debtor.2. On 5-5-1975 the decree-holders filed an execution application and on this application the court on 14-5-1975 issued notice under Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code fixing 19-7-1975. On 19-7-1975 it was found that the notice was not served and thereafter on 19-7-1975 the court directed the decree-holders to take steps within seven days to serve notice under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code. On 1-10-1975 the decree-holders having taken the steps the notice was ordered to be issued for 6-12-1975. On 6-12-1975 the court found that the notice had been duly served: No objection having been filed the court directed that the steps be taken to sell the property by auction. It was then discovered tha...
Tag this Judgment!indrawal Vs. Radhey Raman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All151
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. In this First Appeal which arises from a decree for divorce passed by the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the parties were asked to personally appear in Court in order to enable me to bring about a settlement between the two. They appeared in Court yesterday and a settlement was arrived at between them, pursuant to which an application for compromise was filed. The compromise application was sent down to the Registrar for verification. It appears from the endorsement on the back of the first page of the compromise application that the respondent-husband stated before the Registrar that 'the children would remain with him, though the terms of the compromise say otherwise'. I questioned the husband today before me. He said that he had no objection to the children, who were a daughter aged 9 years and a son 7 years, continuing to remain with the wife even after the divorce, but he expressed his apprehensions about ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »