Allahabad Court September 1983 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.
Dinesh Chand Gupta Vs. Smt. Bitola Devi Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All116
Saxena, J. 1. This is a First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1976 passed by Sri S. C. Shukla, formerly II Civil Judge, Kanpur dismissing the suit with costs. 2. On 27-7-1976 plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,457.50 P. along with pen-dente lite and future interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per cent per mensem and in case of failure to pay, the sale of house number 96, Panki Katra, Kanpur on the basis of a simple mortgage dated 3-2-1971 executed by defendants' numbers 1 and 2 in his favour on 3-2-1971. It was also prayed that in case the amount remained unpaid by the sale of house number 96, Panki Katra, Kanpur, the same may be recovered from the sale of house number 110/165, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur. The principal sum was Rupees 12,500/-. The interest agreed was Re. 1/-per cent per mensem. The amount was agreed to be paid within two years. Defendant 3 was impleaded with the allegation that he was a transferee of house number 110/165 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur...
Satish Kumar Arora Vs. Smt. Varsha Arora and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1012
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. The Magistrate held that the charge of unchastity levelled by the husband is not proved. The revisional Court held that levelling a charge of unchastity is in itself a good ground for allowing the petition of the wife for maintenance. In the present case, the maintenance has been allowed for the wife on two issues. It would appear that although initially any charge of unchastity, was not levelled by the husband against the wife, after the wife's evidence concluded and the applicant was to lead evidence, an application was moved for summoning a lady doctor alleging that the applicant, seeing the wife coming from Maternity Hospital, while she was living separately since much before, got suspicious and then on enquiry from Hospital gathered that she had got pregnancy medically terminated. The charge of unchastity against a wife is a very serious charge and no lady with a sense of respect would be willing to live with such husband. Besides, if the husband is suspic...
Shri Ram and anr. Vs. Smt. Kasturi Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All66
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. These three connected second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the VI Additional District Judge. Meerut, dated February 28, 1978.2. The following pedigree will serve to elucidate the relevant facts of the case. Jwala Prasad ___________________|_________________ | | Mool Chand Nanuwa Singh = Kastoori Devi |________________ | ___________________|_______________________ | | | Smt. Prakashwati Dhapo Malloo = Sri Ram = Kanchchi ________|_________________________________________________ | | | | Smt. Kamla Devi Chatrapal Chetan Pal Satya PalThe dispute relates to house No. 46 situate in Mohalla Chatta, Delhi Gate. Ghaziabad. Mool Chand was admittedly the exclusive owner of this house. He died on 2nd September, 1968. Smt. Kastoori Devi, the widow of Mool Chand, contends that prior to his death, Mool Chand executed a will in her favour on August 30, 1968, in respect of this house. She instituted Original Suit No. 319 of 1971 on March 17, 1971 for evicti...
Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Vs. Gift-tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD1(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in confirming the imposition of penalty on the assessee under section 17(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (the Act).2. The assessee is a HUF. The karta of the HUF was Sir Padampat Singhania, who died sometime after the assessment was completed by the GTO and the present karta representing the HUF is Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania. The gift-tax assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 was originally completed on 24-9-1969. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 16(a) if the Act, on the basis of a letter dated 17-1-1969 written by the assessee HUF and the HUFs of the other two Singhania brothers, namely, the HUFs of late Lala Kailashpat Singhania and late Lala Lakshimpat Singhania, addressed to JK Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (the Bombay company) whereby the Bombay company was authorised to recover its loss to the extent of Rs. 6,61,421.97 out of the...
Satya Pal Sethi Vs. Smt. Sushila Sethi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All81
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a husband's first appeal from a decree dismissing his petition for divorce. There was a counter-claim for recovery of ornaments valued at Rs. 25,200/- and a sofa set valued at Rs. 1000/- under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. The petition and counter-claim were tried together by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur as a District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissed by judgment dated 30th January, 1980. This appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge. Saharanpur, but by order dated 7th October, 1980, the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Saharanpur found that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 20,000/- and consequently the appeal lay to this Court. The memorandum of appeal was thereupon presented in this Court.2. A cross-appeal has also been filed by the respondent-wife against the dismissal of her counter-claim for the return of the ornaments and sofa set.3. The parties were married on 5th July, 1964. From the s...
Mustafa and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ342
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. This is a transfer application. In Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1983, charges were framed by Sri R. P. Yadav VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. He examined all the eye-witnesses except one. Therafter due to change in the designation the case came on to the file of Sri Intiaz Uddin. He examined one eyewitness and a few formal witnesses. Thereafter evidence was closed and arguments were heard and a date was fixed for judgment which was adjourned to 11-8-1983. It was at this stage that the instant transfer application was filed before this Court and stay order was obtained on 9th August, 1983.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the affidavits, and the materials on record. In view of the Division Bench decision of our court, there can be no doubt that Sri R. P. Yadav who framed the charges and recorded evidence at the initial stage, is a court competent to conclude the trial. A mere change in the designation would not divest him of juri...
Shri Ram Kishan Mission and anr. Vs. Dogar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All72
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is defendants' appeal. 2. Facts relevant briefly are that Smt Parmeshwari Devi (since dead) was the exclusive owner of the property specified at the foot of the plaint and situate within the municipal limits of Hardwar. On March 13, 1962 she executed a Tamliknama by registered instrument in respect of this property. The property was dedicated by her for use as Dharmashala to be known as 'Dharmashala Purshottam Das Ji'. Purshottam Das deceased was the husband of the executant. A Board of Trustees was created also by her in this deed with herself as the managing trustee. Clause 12 of the deed provides that during her life time she will have the right to increase or decrease the trustees and to wind up the Trust. On Sept. 16, 1968 this Tamliknama was revoked by Smt. ParmeshwariDevi by another registered instrumentfollowed by a registered deed of gift in respect of the said property made by her in favour of Ram Krishan Mission on 17th Sept., 1968. The gift was accep...
income-tax Officer Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD662(All.)
1. The common contention in all these departmental appeals is that the AAC had erred in canceling the various penalties imposed by the ITO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the assessee.2. Shri Madanlal, who is now represented by his wife Smt. Darshan Kaur in the present appellate proceedings, died on 16-4-1973. Within his lifetime, he was carrying on business in retail in purchase and sale of cloth. He was not assessed to tax. After his death, estate duty proceedings were initiated against his widow Smt. Darshan Kaur, the present assessee before us. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty found that the deceased had fixed and other deposits to the extent of about Rs. 78,000. All these deposits were included in the estate of the deceased for the purpose of estate duty. The Assistant Controller also estimated the investment in this business at Rs. 40,000. It may be stated here that the deceased had not maintained any books of account for his cloth busin...
Haji Abdul Hafiz and anr. Vs. Nasir Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All16
Deoki Nandan, J.1. These two second appeals arise from two suits Nos. 1805 of 1980 and 1886 of 1980 of the Court of Munsif City Kanpur which were consolidated and tried together by the IInd Additional Munsif. Kanpur. The appellants who were the defendants in suit No. 1805 of 1980, which was the leading case, were the plaintiffs in other suit No. 1886 of 1980. Second Appeal Number 868 of 1983 arises from the leading case : Suit No. 1805 of 1980 and the Connected Second Appeal No. 1762 of 1983 arises from other suit No. 1886 of 1980. 2. By judgment dated 19th August, 1982 the trial Court, decreed suit Number 1805 of 1980 and issued a mandatory injunction to the defendants therein, who are the appellants in this Court, to deliver possession to the plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, of the open roof on the second floor within 30days failing which the plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to obtain possession with costs. A further injunction was issued restraining the defendan...
Krishna Kant Jaiswal Vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All350
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 5, namely, Smt. Gita Dhar Nee Bamjai, as a Lecturer in the Department of Journalism Faculty of Arts, Banaras Hindu University. The main ground of attack is that the aforesaid respondent did not possess the minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer as per advertisement whereas the petitioner fulfilled these qualifications and if he had known that appointment would be made even without insisting on the fulfilment of these qualifications, he would have also applied for the post and taken his chance. Admittedly the petitioner was not an applicant in the field. He has, however, chosen to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that if he (petitioner) had applied, he would have had good chance of being selected, and at all events the appointment of the respondent No. 5 who did not possess the required qualification, was apparently illegal.2. A preliminary question arose as to wheth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »