Allahabad Court January 1982 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.
Sudarshan Prasad and ors. Vs. Radha Kishun Ram (Deceased by Lrs.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All218
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. These are two Second appeals arising from the decree dismissing the two Suits 15 of 1967 and 99 of 1970 of the court of the Civil Judge, Ballia. The plaintiffs in the two suits are different from each other, but they belong to the same family. The relief claimed in both the suits was the same, namely, the cancellation and setting aside of a sale-deed dated 1st September, 1943. The two suits were heard and dismissed by the same Judge, but by separate judgments dated 25th Jan. 1972 in Suit 15 of 1967 and dated 29th Jan. 1972 in Suit 99 of 1970. The first appeals from the two decrees of dismissal of the two suits were Civil Appeals 7 and 8 of 1972 in the District Court. They were consolidated, heard and dismissed by a common judgment of the court of the District judge, Ballia. 2. It would be convenient to have before us the family tree of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant-respondents in both the suits. Ram Lagan Ram __________________________|________________...
Smt. Bibbe Vs. Smt. Ram Kali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All248
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for partition of a house situate in Katra Chand Khan old City, Bareilly. They claimed 2/3rds share in the said house and also claimed payment of damages. The house belonged to one Ram Swarup who diedon 5-11-1967. The plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be the widow of Ram Swarup. The plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant No. 1 were said to be his daughters. It was said that Ram Swarup did not, leave behind any other heir except the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 was said to be not having any share in the property but she was asserting her right in the house. The suit for its partition was filed. The suit was resisted by the defendant No. 2 on the ground inter alia, that the plaintiff No. 1 was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Swarup and that the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant No. 1 had also no share in the said house. The contention of the plaintiff No. 1 that sh...
Poonam Chand Trilok Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)320; [1982]136ITR537(All); [1982]10TAXMAN305(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessment years involved are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1971-72. The assessee, M/s. Poonam Chand Trilok Chand, Bareilly, is a partnership firm and carried on business in foodgrains as commission agent and on its own. During the previous years relevant to the years under consideration the assessee had realised Rs. 1,46,302, Rs. 92,870 and Rs. 40,570 as purchase tax from its customers respectively, The assesses did not include these amountsin its profit and loss account for any of these years. At the time of making the assessments for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the ITO failed to notice these receipts. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Act and framed reassessments under Section 144/147(b) of the Act treating these receipts as trading receipts and included the same in the total income. For the assessment year 1971-72, for similar reasons, he added the amount of Rs. 40,570 ...
Ram Das Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)325; [1982]135ITR15(All); [1982]10TAXMAN96(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. This reference is for the assessment year 1969-70. For this year, the regular assessment was completed on the assessee-partnership firm, in the status of a registered firm by an assessment order dated October 21, 1968. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax came to know that a minor had been given the benefit of partnership in the assessee-firm, and that the minor attained majority on January 14, 1968. This date fell within the assessment year 1969-70, because the accounting period for this year ended on October 21, 1968. Even though the minor had become a major, no fresh deed of partnership had been drawn up by the parties till the end of the assessment year 1969-70. He was of the opinion that, in these circumstances, the firm should not have been granted renewal of registration. He commenced proceedings under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and after hearing the assessee cancelled the assessment order and directed the ITO to pass a fresh assessment order...
Ram Nath Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1014
ORDERJ.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th April 1981, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pilibhit affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. On 29th December, 1977, sample of turmeric was taken from the applicant's shop. Formalities as prescribed under the law were duty complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated being coloured with lead cheromate the use of which was prohibited in colouring turmeric. A complaint was thereafter filed for the prosecution of the applicant. The de-Janice set up by the applicant was a total denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was mad out against the applicant and, in the result, the High Court...
QamaruddIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All169
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises in die following circumstances. The plaintiff was appointed in the Railway Security Force, which was later on converted into Railway Protection Force. He claim ed to be holding the post of 'bhisti' in the Railway Security Force at the material time. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was served with a charge-sheet, which ultimately resulted into his dismissal from his service. He preferred an appeal against that order which was also rejected. Then he gave a notice dated 4th Dec., 1968, through Sri Gopal Krishna Srivastava, Advocate, to the General Manager, N. E. Rail-way, Gorakhpur. Thereafter he filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal.2. In the suit he claimed a decree for declaration that the order of 'removal' from service dated 28/30th August, 1968, which Was served on him on 3rd Sept., 1968, was illegal, void and ultra vires and against Article 311 of the Constitution of India and that he should be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›