Allahabad Court July 1981 Judgments
Ram Adhar Vs. Rama Kirat Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All405
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. These two second appeals have been filed by plaintiffs of suit Nos. 457 of 1970 and 53 of 1971 against the same defendant, namely, Ram Kirat Tiwari who is respondent in this Court. The two suits were consolidated and after their trial together they were disposed of by a common judgment dated Sept. 30, 1972. Both were decreed. In two separate appeals filed by the defendant, these suits were dismissed by the lower appellate court by a common judgment dated Nov. 30, 1973.2. The case with which the plaintiffs came to court was that they were manufacturers of bricks and the defendants used to purchase it from them. The defendant had purchased bricks worth Rs. 2000/- from each of the plaintiffs and had executed separate Sarkhat in their favour in which he had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem. Since he had not paid the price of the bricks for the amount of interest, the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suits for the amounts due to them. Initial...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad Vs. Saraswati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All47
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance of two houses at Varanasi. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has decreed it on payment of Rs. 3000/- as the amount of price agreed to be paid, Rs. 1800/- asinterest thereon for five years and Rs. 30/- on account of unpaid house and water taxes total Rs. 4830/-. 2. The main question which arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs could be said to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract within the meaning of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 1963. 3. Kali Das, husband of the first plaintiff-respondent and father of plaintiff-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 sold that property in dispute to one Pera Lal on 15th May, 1957 reserving to himself the right to re-purchase the same. Kali Das was, however, unable to arrange for the necessary funds to re-purchase the property from Pera Lal within the time limited by the agr...
Tag this Judgment!Zulfiqar HussaIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All408
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party, for the recovery of certain amount. He was permitted by the trial court to sue as an indigent person. Subsequently an application was given on behalf of the opposite party on 19-3-1980 (198/C) for withdrawal of the permission given to the applicant to sue as indigent person. The ground taken was that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff applicant had received a sum of about Rupees 34,000/- and was, therefore, in a position to pay the Court-fee. It may be mentioned that the court-fee payable was about Rs. 14,000/-. The plaintiff applicant filed an objection to that application. It was not disputed that the plaintiff had received the aforesaid amount after the filing of the suit but it was averred that out of that amount he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Bank from which he had borrowed that money for making the security deposit and apart from that he made payments to t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rameshwar Dass Mittal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All391
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for pre-emption of the sale of the part of a Haveli situated at Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, by sale deed dated 29-6-1972, registered on 27-12-1972, for Rupees 15,000/- by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to the defendant No. 1. It was said that in the old Abadi of Shamli, to the west of Muzaffarnagar Road, the custom of pre-emption was prevalent since times immemorial among all the residents of that locality, Hindus or Muslims, irrespective of religion, in accordance with Muslim Law, subiect however, to the fact that it was not necessary to make Talabs in accordance with that law, and the demand for preemption in any form was good enough The first right of pre-emption was that of a co-sharer, the next of a participa-tor in appendages and immunities, and the last that of a Shafi-I-Jar. But the lost kind of right of pre-emption, on account of vicinage, had become void on the enforcement of the Constitution.2. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Awadh and ors. Vs. Krishna Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All432
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for injunction and possession in respect of certain land. According to the plaintiff Krishna Nand Lal, his family was a Hindu joint family and his brother Kalindri Lal was not married and died issueless and another brother Chhotkun Lal was blind. The family owned some houses, some of which had fallen down. Two houses remained. Kalindri Lal used to live in the house in suit. The 8th defendant Smt. Jagrani was a Bharin by caste and the daughter of Bhuleshwar who was a resident of a nearby village. She left her Sasural and went back to her father's village and used to do menial work in different houses at the village where the plaintiff resided and in this manner she came to serve in the plaintiff's house. Kalindri Lal died in the year 1964 and now fire-wood and Bhusa used to be stored in the house in which he was living. The plaintiff and the 9th defendant Gyan Swarup, who is the plaintiff's cousin being his father's brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC175(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. In this revision which relates to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee challenges the levy of sales tax at the rate of 3.5 per cent on the sale of zinc sheets. The Judge (Revisions) held that the assessee sells zinc sheets to printing presses where they are used for making blocks for printing. He held that this turnover was taxable at the rate of 3.5 per cent as an unclassified item. The learned counsel questions this finding. According to him zinc sheets are taxable at the rate of 1 per cent under entry No. 2 of Notification No. ST-II-333/X--1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971. This entry reads as follows :2. (a) Copper, tin, nickel or zinc, or any other alloy containing any of these metals only.(b) Scrap meant for melting and sheets including circles meant for making brasswares and containing only any or all of the aforesaid metals, viz., copper, tin, nickel or zinc.2. Under entry No. 2(a) copper, zinc or any alloy containing any of these metals is taxable...
Tag this Judgment!Sadan Singh Vs. Smt. Resham
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All52
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a husband's second appeal in a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, by a decree of divorce and in the alternative for judicial separation.2. The appellant is captain now a major in the army. His case was that the parties were married on 26-4-1959 when he was about 17 years of age and the respondent was only 14. They lived and cohabited together at their village home where they last resided together upto 10-10-1969. The respondent wife is then described as short-tempered who sometimes becomes violent and who is said to use abusive language. She was alleged to be shortstatured and hard of hearing. It was then said that one day the respondent wife hurled a Belen and used to beat his nephews and abused the petitioner's mother as also his brother's wife. This is followed by the complaint that the respondent wife falsely accused the husband of 'complicity with his Bhabhi who is about 18 years older than him' and has 8 issues, the eldest of them...
Tag this Judgment!Nanhey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ158
ORDERR.B. Lal, J.1. This revision has been filed by Nanhey who has been convicted for an offence Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/-.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that Food Inspector V. N. Kulshrestha took a sample of cow's milk from the applicant at Lohamandi crossing within the limits of Nagar Maha Palika, Agra on 25th Aug. 1973 at about 9 p.m. after observing the relevant rules. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the fat content was 3.6% and non-fat contents were 5.6%. The sample was treated as adulterated. A complaint was filed against the applicant on or before 4th May, 1974. The applicant took a variety of defences but none was accepted by the trial court. In the result, the applicant was convicted and sentenced. His appeal was also unsuccessful. Hence this revision,3. Sri R. K. Dwiv...
Tag this Judgment!Shitla Prasad Vs. Allahabad Finance Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All361
ORDERA.N. Varma, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Allahabad recalling an earlier order passed by him on 28-1-1978, by which he had directed that the specimen signature of Amrit Lal, the defendant in the suit, be taken in court.2. It appears that after the aforesaid order dated 28-1-1978 had been passed it was brought to the notice of the Court that there were already on the record three signatures of the defendant, which were taken before the court and that, therefore, there was no necessity for fresh signatures. The applicant challenges the correctness of the above order by way of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. I find no merits in this revision. In the first place, the court has committed no jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Secondly, the order under revision is not 'a case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thirdly, even on merits the o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Vinod Coal Syndicate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC24(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is the Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent-assessee, M/s. Vinod Coal Syndicate, deals in coal. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee disclosed his taxable turnover at Rs. 6,16,629.90. The assessing authority did not accept the accounts and the disclosed turnover for various reasons. The main reason was that the assessee had not included the amount of freight inward in the turnover of sales of coal. The assessing authority hence made a best judgment assessment determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,20,000.2. The assessee's appeal having failed he went up in revision. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Varanasi, accepted the assessee's contention and held that since freight charges were paid by the principals directly, the same were not liable to be included in the sales of coal. As a result the disclosed turnover has been accepted. Aggrieved, the Commissioner has filed the present revision.3. Before taki...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »