Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-20-1967
Reported in : [1968]68ITR798(All)
..... prayer that the respondents should be prohibited from proceeding further with the hearing of the case under section 132(1b).the common constitutional question is that section 132 of the act is violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the constitution and is accordingly void and inoperative. the search and seizure made under section 132 is accordingly illegal. ..... april 14, 1965, the petitioner received a notice dated april 12, 1965, regarding determination of the estimated tax liability under section 132(1b) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter called the act). april 17 was the date fixed for hearing. the notice was issued after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed by rule 112a of the income-tax rules ..... dwivedi j. - these petitions are connected together as they raise a common question of law. a learned single judge, before whom these petitions were listed for hearing, has referred them to a large bench for decision. they have been listed before us for hearing.in the petition no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-20-1967
Reported in : AIR1968All67; (1970)ILLJ241All
..... high court. there is no suggestion anywhere in the judgment of the supreme court that if the governor consults the high court, a committee of the judges of the high court cannot lawfully act for the court. it does not advert to the rules of the court relating to the administrative business of the court. this decision, therefore, cannot ..... by the high court. matters like grant of leave to or transfer of individual officers will have to be considered by all the 39 judges. in the state of west bengal v. n. n. bagchi : (1968)illj270sc the supreme court has held that the word 'control' in article 235 includes disciplinary jurisdiction, and the high court alone can hold ..... rules might be made under article 234, and (b) that these rules required prior consultation of the authorities named before they are made.'33. in bagchi's case, : (1968)illj270sc also, the supreme court read article 234 in the same way. referring to articles 233 and 234, hidayatullah, j. observed at page 779 (of scr)=(at p. 450 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-23-1967
Reported in : AIR1968All207; 1968CriLJ721
..... with the sanction of the state government and the offence alleged to have been committed by him had been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. the learned single judge-allowed this plea to be raised for the first time at the stage of revision because it affects the question of jurisdiction.2 ..... an act; nor does a government medical officer act or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining, though ..... gill v. the king, that-'a public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to he within the scope of his official duty thus a judge neither acts nor purports to act as a judge in receiving a bribe, though the judgment which he delivers may be such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-20-1967
Reported in : [1968]22STC60(All)
jagdish sahai, j.1. this reference under section 11(1) of the u.p. sales tax act (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been made by the additional judge (revisions) sales tax, u.p., who has submitted a statement of the case and invited our opinion on the following questions of law :(1) whether under the circumstances ..... after giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish a certificate from the customs barriers. the commissioner of sales tax filed a revision application against the order of the judge (appeals) sales tax made in connection with the assessment year 1958-59 and the assessee filed one in respect of the assessment order made for the year 1956-57 ..... e., within india, it is not possible to hold that the sales had occasioned export. the view that we are taking finds support from the observations made by the learned judges of the supreme court in ben gorm nilgiri plantations co., coonoor v. sales tax officer, special circle, ernakulam a.i.r. 1964 s.c. 1752 which are as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-1967
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ21All
..... ground that it was barred by limitation. the petitioner-board want up la appeal under section 17 of the payment of wages act. this appeal was partly allowed on 20 april 1966. the additional district judge held another part of the claim to be barred by time but the main plea of the petitioner-board was rejected and ..... electricity board prays that the order of the additional district judge and the prescribed authority passed under the payment of wages act, 1936, be quashed.2. the state electricity board is a body corporate constituted by the government of uttar pradesh under section 5 of the electricity (supply) act, 1948. in october 1963 the board took over the ..... the finding of the prescribed authority that the notification under section 3(b) of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act governed the petitioner-board, was upheld.4. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-15-1967
Reported in : AIR1968All246; (1968)ILLJ407All
..... year was out he again got into trouble and serious charges of misconduct were framed against him. he was suspended once again. as a result of the inquiry, he was removed from service by an order of the joint director, panchayat rai, dated the 12th may 1954. his appeal against this decision was dismissed by ..... of suits, appeals, and certain applications to courts, . ... '(the rest of the preamble is not relevantfor this case). section 3, which is the backbone of the act, provides.'3. subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 25 (inclusive) every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the period of limitation prescribed ..... it does, and rejects the claim as 'time-barred' it extends the law of limitation beyond its prescribed orbit and usurps the prerogative of the courts, and acts without jurisdiction. alternatively, its decision is based on an extraneous and irrelevant consideration not permitted by law and therefore illegal whichever way we look at it, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-28-1967
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas16(All)
..... taken by me. the facts of that case are that the industrial bank ltd. went into liquidation and was being wound up under the supervision of the district judge. the district judge passed an order against two. persons requiring them to pay a certain amount. thereupon the sons of one of those persons instituted a suit in the court of ..... the liquidator a party. one of the objections taken by the liquidator was that, as the leave of the court under section 171 (now section 446) of the companies act had not been obtained, the suit could not be commenced against the bank. the learned munsif sustained the liquidator's objection and dismissed the suit, notwithstanding the fact that the ..... court can grant the desired leave on an application which was filed on a date on which the suit was barred by limitation. section 446 of the indian companies act, in so far as it is material for the present purpose, reads thus:'when a winding-up order has been made or the official liquidator has been appointed as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-28-1967
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas620(All)
..... 8. the expression ' admitted in evidence ' has not been defined in the act. there cannot, however, be any doubt that the expression 'admitted in evidence ' stands in contradistinction to the expression 'tendered in evidence ' or ' produced in evidence '. ..... as the suit was compromised and because there is no order in writing admitting the three documents mentioned above in evidence, the provisions of section 61 of the act are not applicable. the question requiring consideration is as to what do the words ' makes any order admitting any instrument in evidence as duly stamped ' mean. ..... of stamps (collector under the indian stamp act), has been made to this court under section 61 of the indian stamp act (hereinafter referred to as the act). in suit no. 7 of 1961, united bank oj india v. ram chandra kapur of the court of the second additional civil judge, varanasi, a large number of documents were .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-31-1967
Reported in : AIR1969All119
..... the reason that the appellate authority while considering the question if or not opposite party no. 5 was better entitled to a permit as against the grantees did not judge the relative merits of the grantees vis-a-vis the appellant but confined itself only to the comparison between the claim of opposite party no. 5 and that of ..... transport authority at its meeting dated the 6th of may, 1965 allowed renewal to the petitioners for a period of three years from 11-6-1965 to 10-6-1968. in appeal no. 175 of 1962 filed by srimati shamim banu which was one of the several appeals preferred against the order of the regional transport authority (annexure 1 ..... one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the subject. it may be that section 64 of the motor vehicles act does not specifically provide for the impleadment of the persons affected by the result of the appeal even though it specifically mentions that the appellant, and the regional transport .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-30-1967
Reported in : [1968]68ITR673(All)
..... validity of the partnership in question, on the basis of the provisions of the income-tax act and the partnership act only, he was in error in judging its validity in the light of the provisions of the indian companies act. this contention is so obviously untenable that i would not have made reference to it but ..... carrying on a business is equally well settled. the partnership that is created is a contractual partnership and will be governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. the partnership is not between the family and the other partners ; it is a partnership between the coparcener individually and his other partners (see ..... the department was banares cloth dealers syndicate v. income-tax officer, banares : [1964]51itr507(all) . here, the provisions of section 4 of the indian companies act were held to have been contravened by the partnership found in the case. the question whether there was a partnership between certain individuals and certain joint families and .....
Tag this Judgment!