Allahabad Court August 1981 Judgments
Shiv NaraIn Chaudhary Vs. Naug and Company, Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All44
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. In this plaintiff's second appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment from the house in dispute let out in 1944, it has been found by the twp courts below that alterations made after 1947 did not result in bringing out a new construction. Therefore, provisions of Act III of 1947 were applicable to it. The finding being on question of fact has not rightly been seriously challenged on behalf of appellant. 2. Admittedly, one Qadir who was the owner of the premises in dispute entered into a contract of tenancy with the defendant in 1944. After he migrated to Pakistan it became evacuee property and the Custodian transferred its ownership to the plaintiffs father (since deceased). In the document of transfer an endorsement was made in favour of Naug and Company, the Commercial name in which business is being run by the defendants since the time of their, father. Rent has also been paid by Naug and Company. When it became in arrears of three months the appellant's father ga...
Tag this Judgment!Johari Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All436
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. This is a defendant's revision. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale but failed to get a decree in the trial court. While the appeal was pending in the lower appellate court, the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint introducing the claim that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In spite of the objections of the respondent revisionist, the application was allowed by the impugned order, which is being challenged in this Court.2. At the hearing of the revision, a preliminary objection was taken by Sri R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the opposite party and he submitted that the revision is not maintainable as the court which passed the order of amendment was not doing so in exercise of its original jurisdiction. He, in this connection, relied upon two Supreme Court decisions in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad ((1980) 2 SCC 378) : (AIR 1980 SC 892) and Vishnu Awatar v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal JaIn and Co. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer 12 and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC85(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner submitted his quarterly returns for the assessment ear 1975-76 for purposes of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer by order dated 21st March, 1980, assessed the turnover at Rs. 2,30,350, and imposed tax of Rs. 8,324.05. He found that an amount of Rs. 2,123 had been deposited by the dealer, and an amount of Rs. 6,201.05 remained unpaid. He accordingly directed a demand notice to be issued for the sum. The dealer in the course of the assessment had taken up the stand that a larger amount of tax had been paid by him, but the Sales Tax Officer found that there was nothing on the record to substantiate this allegation. He, however, directed that on the dealer furnishing proof of payment of a larger amount of tax, he would be given benefit of it. A direction was given for charging two per cent interest on the shortfall of tax on the admitted turnover as from 9th September, 1976.2. The petitioner has challenged the imposition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Surajdeo Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All23
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for setting aside ex parte decrees obtained by the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5.2. The disputed land is in the nature of a Pokhari (small pond). The contesting opposite parties had filed suits claiming Sirdari right therein which were decreed on 7-9-1962 by the trial Court. It appears that after a lapse of five years, the contesting opposite parties asserted their right based on ex parte decrees and started saying that they would not permit anybody to irrigate their fields from the disputed land which led the petitioner to make enquiries with regard to the claim of the contesting opposite parties and thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 20-9-1967 for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 7-9-1962. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree is attached with the writ petition and has been marked as Annexure 'I'. The petitioner had sought the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Kaiser Parvez and Etc. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All9
S.J. Hyder, J. 1. These are two connected Second Appeals which are directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, passed in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1968 and Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1968. 2. It is not in controversy that As-lam Parvez and Kaiser Parvez, one of whom is appellant in Second Appeal No. 855 of 1972 and the other is in the Second Appeal No. 858 of 1972, are real brothers. The name of their father was Mohammad Yasin. The suits had been filed by both the plaintiffs-appellants under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Roohunnisa. Abdul Razzaq was the grandfather of the plaintiffs-appellants. He gifted the properties in dispute in favour of the two appellants. Mohammad Yasin. acting as natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs, executed two sale deeds in favour of the defendants-respondents. Each of the sale deed was executed on January 29, 1964. 3. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants was that Mohammad Yasin suffered from some abdominal ailmen...
Tag this Judgment!L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR277(All); [1982]8TAXMAN88(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, hereafter ' the Act ', for the opinion of this court: At the instance of the assessee :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduct in the computation of its business profit for the year ending September 30, 1964, the amount of increase in the present value of its future liability to pay gratuity to its employees under the scheme of November 1, 1960, as compared with the similar liability which existed as on September 30, 1963 ' 2. At the instance of the department :' 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 40(c)(i) and 40(c)(iii) are mutally exclusive and that the expenditure by way of guarantee commission paid to directors was to be considered only in the light of Section 40(c)(i) of the Act and 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Paper and Straw Board and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: 1985(19)ELT64(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Messrs R.G. Paper and Straw Board Mills, the petitioner appears to have cleared mill board manufactured by it from 19th December, 1971 to 12th December, 1972, and paid excise duty thereon. On 15th December, 1972, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Hathras, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the additional duty be not charged. Apparently he was under the belief that the petitioner has been under charged. The petitioner filed a reply and the matter was ultimately decided by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Aligarh on 21st July, 1973, He held :'I am of the opinion that the Board manufactured by M/s. R.G. Paper and Straw Board Mill manufactured from mixed waste paper along with some percentage of Straw of other agricultural residues does not conform to the specification of a 'mill board' as given in Notification No. 35/64-C.E., dated 1-3-1964 and as such are not eligible for any slab concession.I, therefore, order that the Board manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All426
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner Hakim Khan was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter, both the tenure-holder and the State went up in cross-appeals and both these appeals were decided by the appellate court on 14-9-1975 and 1.20 acres was declared as surplus land. The said order became final. Subsequently, after the amendment of the Ceiling Act, a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner whereby 6.34 acres of irrigated land was sought to be declared as surplus; a true copy of the said notice has not been annexed to the writ petition. However, it has been referred to in the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities. Objections were filed by the petitioner and one of his objections was that in the earlier ceiling pro...
Tag this Judgment!Kartey Singh Vs. Iftikhar Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All386
Amitav Banerji, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant.Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- on the basis of promissory note and the receipt dated 25th March, 1972 was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court held that there were material alterations in the promissory note, inasmuch as the refugee relief stamp was subsequently affixed and was not properly cancelled. The promissory note and the receipt were insufficiently stamped, and that the pronote was a forged document. It was further held that the plaintiff could not establish by reliable evidence that he had advanced Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant on the 25th March, 1972. On appeal, the court below held that the instrument in question was a bond and not a promissorynote and that the provisions of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had no application to the bond. The court below further held that the amount had been advanced and nothing had been paid by the defendant. It further held that the promissory ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhulwati Devi and anr. Vs. Munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All20
A.V. Varma, J.1. This second appeal and the cross-objection filed therein are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court ill its entirety. On appeal, the decree of the trial court was modified. Whereas the decree of the trial court for removal of constructions complained of by the plaintiff-respondent was affirmed, the decree of the trial court in respect of the parnala was set aside and the plaintiff-respondent's suit in that regard was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the lower appellate court, the defendants have filed this second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent on the other hand, has filed cross-objection against the dismissal of their claim in respect of parnala.2. The plaintiff-respondents came to the court with the allegations that they have five ventilators on the ground floor of their house in their western wall. Through these ventilators, the plaintiffs were enjoying uninterrupted passage of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »