Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-24-1965
Reported in : AIR1966All474
Uniyal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal from the decree or the Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing his suit with costs.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: On the 15th January 1951 Mukhtar Singh, deceased unole of me appellant, made an application for insurance in the Crown Life Insurance Company, Toronto, Canada, with its branch office at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for a sum of Rs. 35,000. In that application he stated his occupation as landlord and mill owner, Weaving and Spinning Mills, and his place of residence as C/o Brahma Dutta Sharma, Gujrati Well. Meerut City. On the basis of the above application the Company issued an interim policy to Mukhtar Singh on the 19th February 1951. The interim policy was approved by the Head Office of the Company which issued Insurance Policy No. 573766, dated 21st May 1951 in favour of the said Mukhtar Singh. In that policy the appellant was described as the nominee of the assured afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-21-1965
Reported in : AIR1966All338
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a statement of a case submitted, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to this Court inviting to answer the following question: Whether the business of an Hindu undivided family on which notices under Section 13 of the E.P.T. Act had been served before the disruption of the Hindu undivided family could be subjected to E. P. T, after the disruption of the Hindu undivided family? The assessee is it Hindu undivided family which once carried on business in hemp and oilseeds in the name of Neeka Lal Jai Narain and the question is of being assessed to excess profits tax for two chargeable accounting periods, (1) 1-9-1939 to 14-11-1939 and (2) 15-11-1939 to 24-10-1940. Notices as required by Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were served upon the Karta of the Hindu undivided family on 8-6-1942. On 27-2-1943 it was assessed to the excess profits tax for the first chargeable accounting period b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-21-1965
Reported in : [1966]61ITR704(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is statement of a case submitted, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to this court inviting to answer the following question :'Whether the business of a Hindu undivided family on which notices under section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act had been served before the disruption of the Hindu undivided family could be subjected to excess profits tax after the disruption of the Hindu undivided family ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which once carried on business in hemp and oil seeds in the name of Neekelal Jai Narain and the question is of its being assessed to excess profits tax for two chargeable accounting periods, (1) September 1, 1939, to November 14, 1939, and November 15, 1939, to October 24, 1940. Notices as required by section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were served upon the karta of the Hindu undivided family on June 8, 1942. On February 27, 1943 it was assessed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-11-1965
Reported in : AIR1966All12
..... of this court took the same view in kedar nath sethi v. life insurance corporation of india : (1961)iillj700all . we, therefore, find it impossible to hold that rule 115 in so far as it provides for arbitration of a dispute between a society or its committee and any officer of a society is ultra vires simply because there is no mention of such a dispute in section 43, sub-section (2), clause (1) of the co-operative societies act.6. in consequence we hold that rule 115 of the rules framed ..... ceased to be an officer of the society ?'we are of the view that if the cause of action arose when the officer was an officer of the society but the dispute and the reference of the dispute to arbitration was subsequent to his ceasing to be an officer of the society, rule 115 would be applicable,8. for the reasons given above, our answers to the three questions referred to this full bench are as follows:- -question no. 1.--no. question nos. 2 and 3.--the word 'officer' includes a past officer if the cause of action arose when ..... question with which we are concerned. learned counsel for the appellants relied upon debi dat joshi v. barrow co-operative development union, 1956 all lj 930, in which mehrotra, j., expressed the view that clause (iii) of rule 115 of the rules framed under section 43 of the co-operative societies act permits a reference to an arbitrator any dispute touching the business of a registered society between the society and its officers, but it does not contemplate a reference .....
Tag this Judgment!