Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All596
..... section 39 of the delhi rent control act. 1958 because the appropriate legislature had imposed a bar against any further appeal by making the judgment under section 39(1) 'final' under section 43 of the act. in my opinion, in respect of judgments passed by a single judge of the high court in exercise of jurisdiction and powers conferred by or under a particular statute, the legislature which enacted it or which is competent and empowered under the constitution to amend, alter or repeal the act ..... act upon such petition because of the prohibition contained in section 4 of the court-fees act. similarly, by virtue of section 3 of the limitation act courts cannot entertain, suits, appeals or applications filed after the expiry of the periods of limitation prescribed by the act, except as permitted by the act.167. instances again are not lacking where the state legislature acting ..... existed by virtue of clause 10 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court and section 12 of the oudh courts act and paragraph 7 of the amalgamation order, 1948. such right of appeal has been ..... constitution and organisation' in the same manner. according to him :'both the words 'constitution' and 'organisation' mean the fixation of the form in which a high court should come into existence. giving it a liberal ..... act for the organisation and management of thestate reform school'. in re sanders, 36 p. 348. 349. 53 kan, 191, 23 lra 603.corpus juris secundum volume 15. constitute: defined generally by the standard .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-12-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All178
K.B. Srivastava. J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a special appeal filed against an order of a learned Single Judge who placing reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P., 1962 All LJ 426, allowed the writ petition in part. The Division Bench, which heard the special appeal, felt that the decision in Krishna Chandra Sharma's case required reconsideration and it has, therefore, referred the following question for the conderation of this Full Bench :--''Whether an order passed by the State Government cancelling an order of allotment and directing the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord passed in revision filed tinder Section 7-E of the Bent Control and Eviction Act is an order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Kent Control and Eviction Act within the meaning of Section 7-A (1) of that Act'2. In Krishna Chandra Sharma's case, 1962 All LJ 426 the original order of allotment was m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-10-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All73
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. Suit No. 38 of 1966, giving rise to the above appeal, was filed by the appellant M/s. Allahabad Theatres Private Ltd., against the respondent Smt. Kusum Kumari for eviction from the property known as Jawahar Palace. No, 29(Old)/ 98 (new) Jawahar Square Allahabad, now run under the name of Naaz Cinema, along with all its fittings, electric and otherwise, furniture, operating instruments, fixtures and other appurtenant articles and accessories, including the building, seats, machinery and fans etc. A decree for arrears of rent, damages insurance money and Bhumi Bhavan Kar, amounting to Rs. 13,496.91 was also claimed. 2. The said suit was filed on the allegations that the appellant was a private limited company and had been floated with the object of carrying on the cinema business by acquiring lands and buildings for that purpose. The said Company constructed the premises No. 29(old)/98 (new) in Jawahar Square, Allahabad. The entire building was filled with projectors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-24-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All1b
Asthana, J.1. The basic question, common to all these cases referred to a Full Bench, is whether the relationship between the parties was that of pure master and servant unregulated or uncontrolled by any statutory provision and the servant was not entitled to the relief of injunction or declaration of nullity of removal from service and his remedy lay in a suit for damages for breach of contract.Second Appeal No. 2973 of 19712. The first case referred is Second Appeal No. 2973 of 1971 which arises out of a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-appellants from interfering with the plaintiff-respondent in the discharge of his duty as Principal including functioning as such for all intent and purposes of the Vaish Degree College, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, later on known as Vyparik Varg Degree College, Shamli, hereinafter referred to as Vaish College.3. Admittedly Sri Laxmi Narain, the plaintiff-respondent, was the permanent Principal of the Vaish College. He was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1973
Reported in : [1973]32STC555(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. These group of petitions are between the same parties and raise common question of law and as such we propose to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and manufactures railway wagons. During the period covered by the assessment years 1961-62 to 1966-67, the Government of India through the Ministry of Railways placed orders for the manufacture of railway wagons, on various dates. These wagons were to be manufactured by the assessee on terms and conditions and stipulations contained in the Indian Railway Standard Conditions of Contract A5-51 (Revised), in so far as they were not inconsistent with the special conditions of contract, attached as per annexure A to the petition, The conditions of contract in each of the assessment years were substantially the same. During the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee received payment from the Government to the extent of Rs. 3,34,631. This amount was included in the turnover of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-06-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All390
Kirty, J.1. Before this Bench, constituted by the learned Chief Justice, following questions fall for consideration and answer:--(1) Will Civil Revisions arising out of suits of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees or arising out of other proceedings filed in this Court before the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972 came into force, not lie here and will have to be sent to the District Courts?(2) In case the order sought to be revised is passed by a District Judge or any officer exercising the powers of District Judge in an appeal or revision arising out of an original suit of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees, where will a revision lie, if at all?(3) Does no revision lie from proceedings other than original suits ?2. The above questions have arisen on account of the amendment in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) made by Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972. This Act, passed by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-02-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All532; [1973]90ITR73(All)
Mathur, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (J) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It relates to the assessment year 1957-58. The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had made a similar reference in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 which was answered by this Court in Commr. of Income-tax, U. P. v. Ram Laxman Sugai Mills : [1970]76ITR123(All) .2. Considering that the question of law involved is the same and the reference pertains to the same assessee as in the earlier reference, it is not necessary to give the facts of the case in detail. It can simply be mentioned that the assessee. M/s. Ram Laxman Sugar Mills, Mohiuddinpur, is a firm manufacturing sugar; owning mills at Mohiuddinpur in the district of Meerut, The firm comprises of two groups of partners. On account of certain differences between the partners the Government of India was compelled to take action under Section 3(4) of the E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-29-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All430
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a Special Appeal by Ashiq Husain, petitioner, against the order of a learned single Judge partly allowing and partly dismissing the writ petition moved by him and by Smt. Hanifa Bibi, respondent No. 4.2. The material facts of the case are that one Yadan was a resident of Uttar Pradesh having a house in Mohalla Aliganj of the town of Tanda in district Faizabad but had shifted to Kamtee in Madhya Pradesh in 1940 and migrated to Pakistan in or before 1949. The appellant Ashiq Husain, purchased the house from Yadan in 1960 (sic). It was after a few years that the Custodian gave notice to petitioner No. 1 under Section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXI of 1950) to show cause why damages be not recovered from him for being in unauthorised possession of the abovementioned house which was an evacuee property and had vested in him. The notice is dated 5-11-1956.3. The learned single Judge was of opinion that Clause (i) of Section 2 (c) of U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-23-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All505
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The appellant is the owner of an accommodation of which the respondent No. 1 is a tenant. The appellant made an application for permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act in of 1947 to file a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 1. The permission was refused by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but on a revision having been filed by the appellant, the Commissioner allowed the application and granted the necessary permission. This order was upheld by the State Government under Section 7-F of the aforesaid Act. The respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition in this Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that neither the Commissioner nor the State Government compared the needs of the landlord and the tenant as required of them and consequently their orders were vitiated. The landlord has now filed this special appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy us that either the Commissioner or the State Government had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All438
N.D. Ojha, J.1. One Mohammad Amin, who was the father of Mohammad Din, on the stand taken by the Evacuee Property Authorities, migrated to Pakistan in June, 1948. His properties were treated to be evacuee property and got automatically vested in the Custodian under the provisions of U.P. Ordinance No. I of 1949. Subsequently, treating the properties to be evacuee property a notification was issued under Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act XLIV of 1954) and the property in question was thereby acquired. The acquired property was thereafter auctioned on 1-12-1960 and purchased by some one who has not been made a party in the present special appeal; nor was he made a party in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal. The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property had during the lifetime of Mohammad Amin issued notices on 16th November, 1957 claiming arrears of rent in respect of the evacuee property. At this place it may be pointed out that M...
Tag this Judgment!