Allahabad Court March 1981 Judgments
Raj Rana Himmat Singhji Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD594(All.)
1. In all these appeals the controversy is common, namely, whether or not the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 2(e)(1)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act") in respect of his house known as "Garhi", situated in Chhoti Sadri.2. The appellant is an ex-Jagirdar of the erstwhile estate of Udaipur.He holds about 72 bighas of land around the township of Bari Sadri. The said lands are under the assessee's self-cultivation which of course is done with the help of labourers. The said house known as "Garhi" is situated in the town which has a municipal committee to look after the administration. The said house is used by the assessee for his own dwelling, for storing grains, for keeping his agricultural implements, tractor, bullocks, etc. While residing in the aforesaid Garhi, the assessee supervises the aforesaid agricultural operations being carried on in his field by hired labourers. The assessee's case is that in view of the aforesaid facts, the aforesaid house shou...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Raghunath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All235
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Theseare decree-holder's applications in revision, directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jhansi. dismissing the execution application as barred by time.2. When the revisions came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, it was submitted that the iudgment-debtor was precluded by the doctrine of constructive res iudicata from raising the objection that the execution was barred by limitation. It was argued that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Genda Lal's case : AIR1936All21 laying down the proposition that the iudgment-de-btor was competent to raise the plea of limitation at any time during the pendency of the execution application was not the correct view of law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goenka's case : [1953]4SCR377 and Prem Lata's case : [1971]1SCR364 . The attention of the learned single Judge was drawn to three Full Bench decisions of the Hyderabad, Venkappa v. Lakshmikant Rao. (AIR 1956 Hyderabad 7), Oris...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishna Indley Vs. 5th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All300
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following question :--'Whether the provisions of Section 2(2) are applicable only to buildings which are brought into existence after the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or they are applicable also to buildings constructed prior thereto?'2. In Suit No. 1440 of 1976 brought by plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner the question raised was whether the plaintiff-respondents was entitled to get the decree for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed house without complying with the requirements of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972). The allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff were that as the disputed house had been constructed in the year 1971, the provisions of the aforesaid Act did not apply and that they were entitled to get the decree for ejectment against ...
Tag this Judgment!Plastipack Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC75(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. M/s. Plastipack Private Ltd. manufacturing and selling woven fabrics known as HDPE fabrics approached the Commissioner under Section 35 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and claimed that fabrics manufactured by them were rayon textiles within the meaning of Notification No. ST-4064/X-960 dated 25th November, 1958, and therefore, it be unconditionally exempt from payment of tax. The Commissioner did not agree as the word 'textile' in common parlance, according to him, should be confined to clothing meant to cover or clean the body such as shirting, suiting, towel, etc., and furnishing used in connection with covering and decorating walls and furniture such as curtains, carpets, etc. He, further held that fabrics manufactured by the assessee were laminated fabrics, the process of which comprised of impregnation of plastic material pressed together thereby producing air and water proof fabric. And as woven textile fabrics are neither air nor water proof, the assessee was not ent...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All314
Mithal, J. 1. Against an award given by the Arbitrators the State of U. P. had filed certain objections under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The objections were dismissed by the court below against which the present appeal has been preferred under Section 39 of the Act.2. The Government of U. P. had invited tenders for the construction of civil works for the prestigious Yamuna Hydel Schems, Dehradun, Stage-2. The respondent, in collaboration with some other companies, submitted their tenders but as their rates were found to be high, the tender was given to some other tenderer. However the work could not be taken up by those contractors and, therefore, in 1965 the respondent was again approached by the Government to enter into a contract on a negotiated basis for carrying out the works in question. As a result of the negotiations finally on 5-2-1966 the contract papers were signed wherein it was envisaged that total works of the value of Rs. 15,64,80,298.50 will be execute...
Tag this Judgment!Munney Khan Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All240
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. These three second appeals are directed against a common order dated 30th November. 1978 of the court of District Judge, Etah. holding that the three appeals Nos. 10 of 1974. 208 of 1973 and 272 of 1973 had abated on account of the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff- respondents.2. The first thine which struck me as rather extraordinary in these appeals is that the two deceased plaintiff-respondents Smt. Kaushilya Devi and Smt. Har Peari Devi were originally im-pleaded as the two plaintiff-respondents in the three second appeals filed in this Court and it was only at the time of the hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the name of Smt. Kanti Devi. the third respondent was added and the Court directed issue of notice to her alone.3. Before dealing with the merits of the same as put forth by Mr. V. K. Barman, for the defendant-appellant, it appears necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mohammad Khan Vs. Rashid Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All261
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. hereafter 'the Act'. The brief facts are these. The applicant Noor Moham-mad Khan was adjudged as insolvent by order dated 21-1-1973 and one year's time was specified for making an application for discharge. In pursuance of that order the applicant made such an application under Section 41(1) of the Act. An ex parte order was passed on that application on 2-11-1976 discharging the applicant. On 30-11-1976 Rashid Ahmad, opposite party No. 1, filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. for the setting aside of that order. He filed an affidavit in support of that application. The ground taken by him was that his brother had met with an accident at Delhi and in that connection he had gone to Delhi and had not been able to appear on the date fixed. That application was contested by the applicant and he also filed a counter-affidavit. He disputed that Rashid Abmad's brother had met with an...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ477All
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's. Compensation Act by Messrs. Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd., Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura. 2. Sri. K.S. Rajan, respondent No. 2, was employed as a Beldar in the factory of the appellant through a contractor. On 15th July, 1978, an accident took place, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He filed a claim petition claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.The Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, was directed to examine him. The Chief Medical Officer gave his certificate which runs as follows:Office of the Chief Medical Officer, MathuraL.No.M.3/76 Date:3-11-78Sri Jagmohan Lal Upadhya, Labour Inspector.With reference to endorsement of Sri Jagmohan Lal Upadhya, Labour Inspector dated 27th October, 1978, on the certificate of Dr.W. Thams Methodist Hospital, Mathura, in respect of Sri K.S. Rajan aged 28 years, I examined Sri K.S. Rajan, whose signature taken in my presence appears below...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Lala Mool Chand Agrawal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All321
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J. 1. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, Late Lala Mool Chand Agrawal (he died during the pendency of this revision and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record), had filed a suit against M/s. S. K. Agrawal & Company, a partnership firm and its partners, Surendra Kumar Agrawal, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Kela Devi and Bishambhar Dayal. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 88,551.50 along with interest. On an application given by the plaintiff under Order 38, Rule 5, C. P. C. an order was issued to the Superintending Engineer, Asthai National High way Khand, U. P. P. W. D. Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur, for withholding payment of Rs. 96,000/- to M/s. Bishambhar Dayal, another partnership firm and which is the applicant before this Court. The applicant filed an objection under Order 38 Rule 8, C. P. C. in which it was stated that it was a separate firm constituted of M/s, Bishambhar Dayal and his thre...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Bhola Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(All)114; [1981]130ITR468(All); [1981]7TAXMAN119(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Shri Ram Krishna Pande died on 29th December, 1971. The accountable person did not file a return under the E.D. Act within six months as prescribe^ by Section 53(3) of the E.D. Act. The Asst. Controller also did not issue any notice to the accountable person requiring him to file the requisite return. The accountable person, however, on his own motion filed the requisite return on 29th January, 1977, i.e., after the expiry of five years from the date of death of the deceased. The Asst. Controller commenced assessment proceedings on that return. During its pendency, the accountable person raised an objection before the Asst. Controller that as the return was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 73A of the E.D. Act, it was a nullity and no assessment proceedings could validly be undertaken on its basis. The objection was rejected and in due course the assessment was completed. This view of the Asst. Controller was upheld on appeal. The accoun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »