Allahabad Court August 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.
Jawahar Lal Verma Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All384
ORDERA.N. Verma, J. 1. This is a defendant's application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It it directed against an order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge dated 29-7-1980 striking out the defence of the applicant in a suit purporting to act under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Civil P. C. 2. The defendant-applicant is a tenant of an accommodation, of which the plaintiff opposite-party, is the landlord. The plaintiff-opposite-party filed a Suit No. 126 of 1979 for the ejectment of the defendant-applicant as well as for recovery of certain arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The defendant applicant filed a written statement. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and him, but denied the rate of rent. He also disputed the allegation of the plaintiff-opposite party that the defendant was in arrears of rent. 3. It appears that the first date of hearing in the suit was 25-10-1979. The defendant-applica...
Shaukat Trading Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)225; [1982]136ITR89(All); [1982]8TAXMAN103(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. On September 2, 1976, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Department, Varanasi, respondent No. 1, issued a notice under Rule 31 of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961, to the Union Bank of India and the Central Bank of India, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 hereto, directing them to hold certain amounts of money subject to further orders of the TRO and to remit the same to the Tax Recovery Officer within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The notice gave the following details:NameDateRecoverycertificate numberAmountsRs.M.Habibullah13-3-7343, 44 & 4530,3125-3-7343, 44 & 452,57,859 2,88,171BarkatHabib12-3-74702/B13-3-7363-AW5,58,5915-3-7363/701/B5,024 22,671 5,86,286ShaukatHabib13-3-73725/S/62/AW8,22812-3-73328/632,54,9455-3-73725/S1,876 3,06,0492. From this notice, it would appear that a sum of Rs. 2,88,171 was alleged to be due from M. Habibullah while a sum of Rs. 5,86,286 was due from Barkat Habib and a sum of Rs. 3,06,049 from Shaukat Habib as arre...
Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All396
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for a decree directing the defendants to renew the lease of certain land specified at the foot of the plaint for a further period of 30 years with effect from 10th May, 1972. Although the defendants were three in number, the real defendant is only one, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the other two defendants being surplusage, and indeed the name of the third defendant-respondent Sri N. C. Saxena, Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh was deleted from the array of the parties in this Court. 2. The earstwhile princely State of Rampur entered into an agreement dated 28th October, 1974 with M/s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat Singhania agreeing to grant certain land on certain terms. The plaintiff company came to acquire the rights of M/s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat under that agreement with certain modifications in a series of transactions which it is not material to detail in this judgment, inasmuch, as the then Government of Rampu...
Maqsoon Khan Vs. Lala Balwant Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All41
V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal who is aggrieved by a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,400/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs. 4,000/- borrowed by him from the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. 2. The finding which has been arrived at by the courts below concurrently is that after borrowing a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on Feb. 5, 1967 from the plaintiff, the defendant acknowledged his liability for re-payment of the amount by paying to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 300/- on Jan. 1, 1970. There was an endorsement about this payment made at the back of the promissory note and the receipt through which the defendant acknowledged his liability. The defendant affixed his thumb mark below it. Both the courts disbelieved the plea of the defendant that he had not borrowed any money or that the promissory note and the receipt had been fabricated by the plaintiff. 3. The courts below did...
Smt. Usha Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR184(All)
Rastogi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, has referred the following questions at the instance of the assessee, for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, as amended w.e.f. April 1, 1969, would apply in imposing the penalty ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty under Section 18(1)(a) more than half of the tax levied ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee should have filed her return of wealth-tax by June 29, 1967, and for the assessment year 1 968-69, by 29th of June, 1968. The returns were not filed by those dates, but were filed on November 15, 1969, that is, after a delay of 29 complete months for 1967-68 and of 17 months for 1968-69.3. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings ...
Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)101; [1981]132ITR666(All); [1982]9TAXMAN175(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. M/s, Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd , Mansur-pur, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as ' assessee-company '), in its assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1964-65, the previous year ended on September 30, 1963, claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 29,347 as loss incurred in transactions in Govt. securities. The ITO, on the view that the assessee-company does not deal in Govt. securities, held that the securities had been purchased by way of investment and the loss so incurred was of a capital nature. Hence, he disallowed the claim for deduction. On appeal, the same view was taken by ,the AAC and, on further appeal, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hence, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the ded...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bhola Pd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC371(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. These are two revisions directed against common order passed by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee carried on business in sale of aluminium utensils, oil, etc. Apart from this he also manufactured oil from oil-seeds purchased by it. Its account book was rejected and the turnover was determined to the best of judgment on past history. The claim of the assessee was that its business was of crushing oil-seeds and grinding flour on labour basis. The assessing and the appellate authorities did not believe it because the amount of oil-seeds and flour crushed in the year in dispute, as compared to electricity consumed, was not correct. Consequently past history was considered to be the best guide for determining turnover particularly when there was no survey or any other material available on record. This finding was not set aside by the revising authority, yet revision was allowed because the assessee was h...
Sri Nath Agrawal Vs. Sri Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All400
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J. 1. A suit for the ejectment of the revisionist was filed by the oppositeparty on 22nd August, 1978 after terminating his tenancy by means of a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Along with the filing of the suit, by means of a separate application, the plaintiff prayed for attachment before judgment of certain property belonging to the defendant revisionist. The Court ordered issue of notice on this application against the defendant and also issued interim attachment order. In the notice, 4th of September, 1978 was fixed for hearing of the application. In response to this application, the revisionist made an appearance through counsel and on 3-9-1978 prayed for time to file objections against the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment as his (defendant's) counsel was going out of station for some time. This application was allowed fixing 11-9-1978 for filing objections, On 11-9-1978, the counsel for the defendant was pr...
Smt. Kamla Wanti Vs. L.i.C. of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All366
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,300/- on the foot of an Insurance Policy on the life of one Nana Lal Jagjeewan Sanghavi deceased. The plaintiff was his widow and having died in the course of the appeal in this Court, she is now represented by her heirs and legal representatives.2. The proposal for insurance is dated 30th March. 1964 and was accepted vide letter/receipt issued by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ext. 8. The insured appears to have been aged about 56 years at the time of the proposal for insurance and died of 'Heart Failure' on 29th October, 1965. The plaintiff, being the nominee appointed by the insured, claimed the amount of insurance, but her claim having been repudiated by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India, she filed the suit giving rise to this second appeal. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the deceased had suffered from carbuncle and di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›