Allahabad Court August 1984 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.
Damodar Das (deceased by L. R's) Vs. Gurcharan Kapoor and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All398
M. Wahajuddin, J.1. This execution first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Shahajahanpur dated 1-6-1968, rejecting the judgment-debtor appellant's objection under Section 47 C. P. C. 2. The decree initially was passed in favour of Sri Gur Charan Kapoor. The execution application was preferred by Shiv Charan. It was urged that without substitution after due notice to the judgment-debtor Shiv Charan's application was not maintainable. The lower court held that the application in question is maintainable. I have considered the argument. It is established on record that Gur Charan Kapoor had obtained the decree in his capacity of Manager and Karta of the joint Hindu family business. It is also established on record that Gur Charan Kapoor had disappeared and for the last several years was not heard of before this execution application was filed The lower court rightly relied upon the case of Narain Swarup v. Days Shanker : AIR1938All256 . The facts of tha...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Harkut Udyog
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC334(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. Raising a common question : whether steel pallets manufactured and supplied by the assessee to Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. amounts to furniture, these revisions are filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 against the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 11th October, 1982. Both the revisions involving a common question, are disposed of together by a common order.2. The assessing officer treated the iron pallets manufactured and supplied by the assessee as furniture, holding them as iron crates. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) concurred with the assessing officer that the item manufactured by the assessee amounted to furniture. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the iron pallets manufactured by the assessee do not come in the category of furniture, and therefore, they are not liable to tax at a rate applicable to furniture. The definition of the word 'furniture' has not been give...
Ram Swarup Gaur and anr. Vs. Ratiram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All369
Khanna, J.1. The present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun dated 19th February, 1975 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. It may also be noticed that a cross-objection has also been filed in the present first appeal which challenges the decree passed by the Court below giving a declaration to the plaintiffs that they were not liable to pay rent since 11th October, 1974 till the expiry of the period of appeal or appeals, if any, or till they withdraw the deposited amount whichever is earlier.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed Suit No. 294 of 1974 for a declaration that the plaintiffs having paid the sale price, the defendant was liable to sell the suit property back to the plaintiffs as soon as the permission for sale was granted or the ban on transfer or urban property at present is imposed by law in force, besides other reliefs which were for a declaration that they were not liable to pay rent any more ...
Ram Ajore Jaiswal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All366
ORDERB.N. Sapru, J.1. There is a route known as Faizabad-Amghat road. One D. D. Pramanik held a permit No. 231 for a bus on that route and the permit was valid upto 26-2-1971. On 13-6-1968 a notification was issued under Section 68(D)(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the notification was published on 8-5-1968. In the meanwhile on 21-6-1968 D. D. Pramanik died and on 20-7-1968 an application was made by Ram Ajore Jaiswal, the petitioner, under Section 61(2) of the Act for transfer of the permit. His case being that he was in possession of the vehicle covered by permit No. 231.2. Against the publication of the scheme prepared under Section 68(D)(3) of the Act a Writ Petition No. 473 of 1968 was filed by D.D. Pramanik and others and on 19-8-1966 an interim order was made as a result of which the operators were unable to run their buses. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 2-9-1968. Consequently upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmad Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(All)303; [1984]150ITR373(All); [1985]22TAXMAN559(All)
Sahai, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the agreement dated August 31, 1957, followed by letter dated September 28, 1957, from the payee, constituted a legal and valid contract between the assessee and the payee operative during the previous year and requiring the assessee to make payments in cash, as contemplated in Rule 6DD(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the payments by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts would have resulted in genuine difficulty to the payee and there were exceptional and unavoidable circumstances for not making payments by crossed cheques drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft within the meaning of Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962? 3...
Amitab Chaudhary Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All7
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Amitab Chaudhary against the judgment of the District Judge, Allahabad, dated 4th May, 1983, allowing the application of Mewa Lal, respondent No. 2, filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. The brief facts are these. Amitab Chaudhary filed suit No. 661 of 1981 for possession and demolition of constructions made by Respondent 2 Mewa Lal. The suit was decreed ex parte on October 19, 1981 with costs. An application for execution was thereafter made by the petitioner Amitab Chaudhary on 28-1-1982. On 30-1-1982 the application was registered and writ of possession was issued returnable by 27-2-1982. On 25-2-1982, the decree-holder Amitab Chaudhary applied for police assistance to enable him to obtain possession and demolition. On 27-2-1982, an order was passed by the Munsif concerned that writ be issued returnable by 26-3-1982. Ultimately, it appears that on 17-5-1982 Manila police was d...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kailash Chand JaIn and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All21
B.D. Agrawal, J. 1. In this second appeal the question raised is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 77B Indian Railways Act for short 'Act'.2. On April 10, 1968, Kailash Chand Jain -- a partner of the plaintiff-respondent firm, delivered two bars of silver to the railway administration at the Agra Fort Railway Station for being carried by the 84 Up Passenger Train to PDGR Bombay station and delivered to their commission agent, namely, M/s. Jain Brothers. The consignment was accepted by the railway administration and the Parcel Way Bill was issued to the consignor. Ordinarily the consignment ought to have reached the destination within two or three days. One of the bars of silver arrived at the Bombay Station, however, on June 21, 1968, and was delivered to the consignee. The other bar did not reach and it did not come to be delivered. The plaintiff gave notice under Section 78B of the Act on May 30, 1968; the notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Proc...
State of U.P. Vs. the District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All352
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J. 1. These three writ petitions challenge the judgment of the District Judge, Meerut. disposing of Urban Ceiling Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1980.2. The only point involved before the District Judge and before me in these writ petitions was, could the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, be taken in respect of the lands involved in these three cases on account of those lands having been notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition. The learned District Judge answered this question in the negative holding that as the land was intended to be acquired by the State Government for making constructions, the entire land would be excluded from the total holding of the respondents for the purposes of computing the excess vacant land under the Ceiling Act.3. It may suffice to notice the facts of Writ Petition No. 5106 of 1982 for deciding these three petitions inasmuch as the facts of this case would be sufficient for ...
Vishanu Kumar Agarwal Vs. the Chancellor (Governor), Meerut University ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All375
A.N. Varma, J.1. Maharaj Singh College, Saharanpur is affiliated to the Meerut University. The principal of the College issued an advertisement which was published in the 'Hindustan Times' on 27th May, 1975 inviting applications for the posts of lecturers in Economics and Sociology in the Degree Section of the College. We are concerned here with the post of lecturer in Economics. In response to this advertisement the petitioner made an application for the post. Several other candidates also applied. The minimum qualifications prescribed for the post by the Ordinance of Meerut University which was then in force was as follows :'1st Class M. A., or Second Class M. A. with average II class career taking into account results of High School, Intermediate and First degree examination or Ph.D in the subject.'It is not disputed that the petitioner possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed under the aforesaid Ordinance at the time of the selections which were held on 20th July, 1975. The ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Prayag Ice and Oil Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC81(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This revision filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1981-82 raises a very interesting question as to whether rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are one and the same thing. The Commissioner took the view that both are one and the same thing and rice bran having been excluded from the term 'cattle fodder', the de-oiled rice bran should be deemed to have been excluded by the notification from the term 'cattle fodder', which is exempt. The Tribunal did not agree with the Commissioner and concluded that the rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are two different commodities, technically and commercially and, therefore, de-oiled rice bran cannot be said to have been excluded from the term 'cattle fodder', which is exempt from tax on the ground that rice bran has been excluded by notification from the entry exempting 'cattle fodder' from tax. In my view, the question whether rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are one and the same thing can be decided merely by common sense, tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »