Allahabad Court August 1985 Judgments
Assistant Controller of Estate Vs. Radha Krishan Tandon
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD351(All.)
1. The deceased was a partner in the firms of Krishan Khandsari Udyog and Ghanshyam Sugar Factory. From Krishan Khandsari Udyog he retired on 31-12-1980. On his retirement, he was paid the amount standing to his capital account, He was not paid any share either in the development reserve or in the investment allowance of the firm. However, he was relieved of his future liabilities coming to the firm subsequent to his retirement. However, similar facts are not available regarding Ghanshyam Sugar Factory. It appears that from this firm also, the deceased had retired before his death.2. The deceased, however, died on 18-1-1981. The Assistant Controller was of the opinion that since the deceased had not taken his share in the development reserve and investment allowance in Krishan Khandsari Udyog and investment allowance from Ghanshyam Sugar Factory, it could be deemed that he had made a gift of his share in favour of other partners. Further, since the deceased had died within a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Kaka Singh Vs. the Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All107
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. These four connected writ petitions raise common questions of law, hence, they are being decided by a single judgment. For deciding the points, narration of facts of only one of them namely, Writ No. 8110 of 1980 would be sufficient.2. On 26th June, 1979, the petitioner Kaka Singh, purchased land under two sale deeds one from Har Pawan Jit Singh, r/o Tugalpur in respect of one half share in Khata No. 371 measuring 10 bighas for Rs. 12,000/- and the other from Gurnam Singh and Gurjendra Singh in respect of 10 bighas 17 biswas 10 biswansis of land for Rs. 10500/- These sale deeds were presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar. Finding that the market value of the land which were the subject matter of the two sale deeds, as set forth, was less than even the minimum value, he referred the sale deeds under Section 47A of the Stamp Act to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable under the said Act. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaggal and ors. Vs. Rangi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All163
N.N. Sharma, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal directed against judgment and decree dt. 1-6-1974 recorded by Sri K. C. Asthana, learned Temporary Additional. Civil Judge, Gorakhpur by which he dismissed Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1973 with costs and affirmed the judgment and decree dt. 14-5-1973 recorded by Sri A. H. Ansari, learned IVth Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 1340 of 1968. The suit was decreed with costs by learned trial Court.2. The dispute relates to plots Nos. 297/2 area 2.47 acres and 298 area 1.28 acres situate in village Koliya Mohal, Mustqil Tappa Rate, Pargana, Bhauwapar, district Gorakhpur.3. The following pedigree, which was not controverted before me, shall be helpful for appreciating the point involved in this appeal :-- Ehsan Ali | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Nisar Ali Sajid Ali Azmatali Majid Ali | Smt. Aminunnisa. | | | Ali Haider -------------------------------------------- | | | Smt. Hab...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Sharma Vs. B.C. Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All69
O.P. Saxena, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the affidavits exchanged and the Annexures thereto,2. The parties were carrying on a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Amber Guest Business House. On 1-4-1985 the appellant filed Suit No. 89 of 1985 on behalf of the firm against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from creating obstacles in the partnership business. An ad interim stay order was granted. On 19th April, 1985 the respondent No. 1 served a notice dissolving the firm. The interim injunction granted earlier was vacated. The respondents 1 and 2 moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the appellant from carrying on his own business in the disputed premises. The application was allowed on 13th May, 1985. The appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by this Court on 21st May, 1985. Earlier the appellant had filed Suit No. 120 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Tribeni and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All125
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J.1. In respect of plot No. 461 situated in Gorakhpur City, after the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and egulations) Act, 1976 (Parliament Act No. 33 of 1976) a statement under Section 6(1) was filed by Tribeni, son of Munesar. According to him, the plot had a residential house with Sehan along with it. Also, that he had only 1/5th share in the property which was ancestral in character, his four sons also had 1/5th share each. After necessary enquiry, a draft statement was served by respondent No. 3 on the party interested. On May 31, 1977, the Competent Authority made an order saying that Tribeni alone was the owner of the entire area. He held that there was excess land in possession of Tribeni which was declared as vacant land. This order under Section 8(4) of the Act was not assailed by Tribeni in any appeal taken against it under Section 33. The order became final.2. Subsequently, the final statement was served upon Tribeni and the particulars of the vac...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sharif Mohd. Amir and anr. Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC148
ORDERS.K. Dhaon, J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated 1st February, 1985 passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Central Excise Act.2. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut fastening certain pecuniary liability upon the petitioner an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal and that appeal has been dismissed in default by the impugned order. It is stated at the bar that an application for the restoration of the appeal has been filed and the same is pending before the Tribunal. There is some controversy as to whether the application for restoration has been allowed or not. In case the application has been allowed and the appeal has been restored to its original number, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as soon as possible. If the application has not been allowed and is still pending, the appellate authority shall pass an order restoring the appeal to its original number a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shanker Gupta Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD25(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri Prakash Narain, Accountant Member - Since the above appeals relate to the same assessee and are inter-related, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is the co-owner of a property situated at 24/73, Birhana Road, Kanpur. Besides, he is also a partner in firms, which in their turn, also own immovable properties. The WTO had made the assessment on 30-31-1981 on a net wealth of Rs. 19,03,120. This included one-third share of the assessee in the firm of Nagarmal & Co. taken at Rs. 26,812.3. The Commissioner being of the opinion that the order passed by the WTO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, initiated proceedings under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act). In the notice issued on 10-2-1983 under the above section, to the assessee, the Commissioner pointed out two errors to the value of the assessees share in the firm of Nagarmal & Co. The Commissioner stated that th...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanseley and anr. Vs. Babu Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC54
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29-10-1977, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, dismissing the petition made by the appellants for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The appellants are the parents of one Nanak Ram, who met with an accident while going on a cycle on 20-9-1972 with a private bus. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident Nanak Ram died and consequent upon his death the claim petition mentioned above was filed by the appellants.3. The petition was contested by the respondents and after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties the Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition on the finding that it has not been established that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at the time of the accident.4. It has been urged by the counsel for the appellants that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad JaIn Vs. Smt. Indira Devi JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All238
ORDERKamleshwar Nath, J.1. This revision, under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against an order dated 22-7-1985, of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, exercising powers of the Judge, Small Causes, has been opposed at the stage of admission and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard in detail on merits.2. Small Cause Court Suit No. 33 of 1977 was filed by opposite party 3, Raj Kishore Rastogi, against the revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain, his wife opposite party 1, his son opposite party 2, and other opposite parlies for ejectment from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was contested. Parlies had led all their evidence; only the present revisionist Mahabir Prasad Jain was to be examined as a witness for the defendants. On 28-5-1981, an application for adjournment on the ground of the revisionist's inability to be present having been rejected, the suit was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court on 29-5-1981. Civil Revision No. 78 ...
Tag this Judgment!Naini Oxyzen and Acetylene Gas Ltd. Vs. Bisheshwar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas990(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This special appeal and the connected Special Appeal No. 7 of 1985 have been preferred against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated April 30, 1985, whereby two applications for execution of decree passed in Company Petition No. 23 of 1981 on January 9, 1984, were allowed. A direction was issued that the decree dated January 9, 1984, shall be transmitted to the court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, for execution in accordance with law.2. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ' the company '), was incorporated as a public company limited by shares under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). It appears that there were four groups of directors managing the affairs of the company, namely, (I) Group of Basheshwar Nath, (2) Group of Anil Saran, (3) Group of Durga Prasad Agarwal and (4) Group of P. L. Gupta. Basheshwar Nath and Anil Saran's groups were in the majority and were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »