Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-31-1975
Reported in : AIR1975All354
M.P. Saxena, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1965 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad.2. Briefly stated the facts alleged in the plaint were that one Sheel Chand was the owner of the house described in para 1 of the plaint. After his death it devolved on his two sons, namely. Babu Ram and Ram Swarup in equal shares. On the death of Babu Ram his one half share was inherited by his widow, Smt. Kalawati Devi and on the death of Ram Swamp his one hair share devolved on his sons Maharaj Kumar and Ratan Kumar. The latter died in 1940 leaving behind his widow Smt. Rukmini Devi who got his 1/4 share. Maharaj Kumar died in or about the year 1943 and his one-fourth share devolved on his widow Smt. Tribeni Devi and three sons namely. Devendra Kumar, Mahendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar. In 1950 Smt. Kalawati filed a suit (No. 64 of 1950) against Devendra Kumar and others for partition of her half share. It was decreed and the final dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-28-1975
Reported in : AIR1975All434
ORDERYashoda Nandan, J.1. These are eleven connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging primarily the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling on Property (Temporary Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 36 of 1972)-- hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1236 of 1974 are M/s. Group Industries Private Ltd. which is a private limited company manufacturing cycle parts and its Managing Director. The petitioners allege that because of coercive tax recovery proceeding against the Company, they decided in February 1972 to dispose of their surplus land not in immediate use of the industry. The Company had certain other liabilities and it therefore sold its surplus land and paid up most of its income-tax and sales tax dues. In order to meet its other liabilities, it was negotiating with parties for sale of remaining surplus land not immediately needed by the company. While the negotiations were going- on,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-22-1975
Reported in : AIR1975All425
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge rejecting an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 81 of 1974. The said suit was a suit for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord after determining the former's tenancy. Arrears of rent and damages etc. were also claimed in the suit. The court below rejected the application on the ground that there was no compliance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, therefore, the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in a suit for eviction Section 17 of the said Act will not get attracted. In my opinion, this contention has no force. Section 17(1) reads as follows:--'17. (1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-17-1975
Reported in : [1976]105ITR864(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961,2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Kanpur. The company owns and runs a mill for the manufacture of synthetic fibre, such as nylon filament yarn, metallic cops, nylon staple fibre, etc. The accounting year adopted by the company ended on 30th June, each year. It appears that the company wanted to change its accounting year to end on 31st December, each year, instead of 30th June. In other words, the company wanted to adopt the calendar year as its previous year. The company accordingly on 14th June, 1971, applied to the Income-tax Officer for permission to change the previous year. The following reasons were stated for the change in its letter dated 14th June, 1971 :'1. We are unable to prepare our accounts by 30th June and have regularly taken permission from the Registrar o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-06-1975
Reported in : [1976]104ITR695(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year involved is 1957-58 with the previous year ending on 31st December, 1956. The asses-see filed the return on 31st December, 1957, and the assessment was made on 27th March, 1958. For the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53, the assessments were made on 20th March, 1956, and 29th March, 1956, respectively. Interest on advance tax under Section 18A(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, amounting to Rs. 9,696 and Rs. 5,083 for the two years respectively was allowed to the assessee by adjustment against the existing demand for the assessment year 1957-58. This means that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee had received interest from the income-tax department on advance tax relating to the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53. This interest the assessee did not show in its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-22-1975
Reported in : AIR1976All274
Satish Chandra, J.1. This and the companion writ petitions raise the same points. They can conveniently, be decided by a common judgment.2. Mr. S. C. Khare, who led the various counsel appearing in the different writ petitions, treated the writ petition filed by Messrs. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, as the leading case.3. This group of writ petitions challenges the validity of the notification dated 1st April, 1973, whereby the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, imposed octroi duty on a large number of goods. The Elgin Mills Co's, case is that it imported mineral oils, steam coal and spare parts of machinery amongst a large number of other things for manufacturing cotton textiles and cotton piece goods at its factory. The aforesaid commodities were exempt from octroi duty under a notification dated 24th October, 1925, issued by the State Government under Section 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. This notification was continued in force by Section 577 (a) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-23-1975
Reported in : AIR1976All64
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the plaintiffs second appeal.2. The relevant facts are these: The plaintiff filed the suit against two defendants-respondents. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is the alleged widow of Mahanth Shankeranand Nath deceased and the defendant-respondent No. 2 is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Two main reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff.(1) A declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 7,000/- or any other amount due on the two insurance policies in dispute.(2) A permanent injunction was claimed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant-respondent No. 1 restraining her from realising the amounts due on the said two policies from the defen-dent-respondent No. 2. According to the plaint allegations there is a Math known as Bawa Sarwanath Math of which Mahanth Mahadeo Nath happened to be the Mahanth Gaddinashin and in that capacity he filed the suit. It was stated that the Mahanth had no personal interest in the income of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-16-1975
Reported in : AIR1975All386
ORDERYashoda Nandan, J. 1. This is a petition by 72 brick-kiln owners of Kanpur praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 31st August. 1970 (published in the U. P. Gazette dated 12th September, 1970) issued by the State Government purporting to be in pursuance of the provisions of sub-rule (41 of Rule 1 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules. 1963 --hereinafter referred to as the Rules -- by means of which the said Rules, with effect from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette, were made applicable to 'brick-earth' found anywhere in the State. The further prayer is for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the aforesaidnotification dated 31st August. 1970. Apart from making some prayers of a general character, the petitioners also pray for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-21-1975
Reported in : AIR1976All99
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. On 15-1-1973, the Government of India published a notified order, in exercise of the powers by Section 18-AA of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, authorising the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited, to take over the management of the Shree Sugar Mills and Company, Doiwala district Dehradun (U. P.) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm) for a period of one year from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Before this period of one year could expire on 27-12-1973 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 18-AA read with Sub-section (2) of Section 18-A of the Act, the Central Government made an amendment in the aforesaid notified order dated 15-1-1973 directing that for the words 'one year' the words 'five years' would be substituted. As a result of this amendment the order of appointment of the auhorised controller became five years in place of one year. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-10-1975
Reported in : AIR1976All216
ORDERChandra Prakash, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1975 of Sri R.C. Varma, III Additional District Judge Bareilly dismissing the applicant's revision against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.The facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed and may be reproduced as follows:--2. The defendant applicant was the tenant of the plaintiff O. P. in the premises hi suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The plaintiff O. P. applied for permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U. P. Act III of 1947 in 1959 for filing a suit for ejectment against the defendant applicant. The plaintiff O. P. moved an application dated 11-10-1959 (Ext. 1). The Defendant applicant filed objection against it (Ex. 2). By his order dated 23-12-1960 (Ex. 3) the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission sought by the plaintiff for evicting the defendant applicant. The defendant applicant then filed ...
Tag this Judgment!