Allahabad Court March 1967 Judgments
Babu Khan and anr. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Region ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1969All119
ORDERLakshmi Prasad, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, by a notification published in the U. P. Gazette dated the 27th of June, 1959, invited applications for five stage carriage permits on the Bulandshahr, Siana, Garhbugrasi route. A number of persons including opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 applied. The applications were published in due course in the Gazette dated the 2nd of January, 1960 and it was notified that these will be taken up for consideration at the meeting dated the 23rd of January, 1960. The said meeting was not held for some reason not relevant for the purpose of this case. Then another notification in the Gazette dated the 7th of April 1962, appeared notifying the meeting to be held on the 8th, 9th and 10th of May, 1962. That meeting was adjourned to the 29th and 30th of May and the 2nd of June, 1962. It was at this last mentioned meeting that eight persons out of the numerous applicants were granted...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Kant Rai Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad Region, Al ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All229
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to publish the petitioner's application for a stage carriage permit and consider it along with the renewal application of respondent No. 3.2. It appears that Varanasia Jabalpur Via Mirzapur is an inter-state route lying between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Under a reciprocal arrangement between the two States the strength of this route for which permits could he issued has been fixed at two. The permits were issued to Sri S. N. Tripathi and Smt. Hur-mazi Begum, respondent No. 3. These permits ware to expire on or about 25th December, 1966. The petitioner being desirous for one of these permits, made an application on 26-9-1966 for a stage carriage permit on this route. In the covering letter to his application the petitioner stated that he was applying under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also alleged that both...
Tag this Judgment!Chitra Cinema Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward, Varanasi, and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR877(All)
The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm consisting of Jyoti Bhushan Gupta, his wife, Srimati Sulbha Gupta, and their son, Anil Kumar Gupta. The firm carries on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films at the Chitra Cinema, Varanasi. The petitioner filed the returns of its income in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 in the status of a partnership firm. the income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner in the status of an association of persons. The petitioner appealed against the assessments and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the income of the cinema business belonged to Jyoti Bhushan Gupta as an individual. the case was carried in further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and setting aside the assessment orders remanded the case. The order of the Tribunal was made on April 2, 1962. No fresh assessment has yet been made upon the petitioner. the petitioner, how...
Tag this Judgment!Debi DIn Vs. Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Rly and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All91
ORDERLakshmi Prasad, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the date certain charges were served on the petitioner he held the post of a cabinman. The charges were served by opposite party No. 2 the Assistant Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway Moradabad. A copy of the charges is Annexure 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation a copy of which is Annexure 3. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 passed the order of punishment which is Annexure 4. In this order he mentions the counts for which the punishment is imposed but gives no reasons for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and finding the two charges mentioned in the order proved.The petitioner then preferred an appeal. A copy of the memorandum of appeal is Annexure 5. It came to be rejected by opposite party No. 1 the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad by an order which is Annexure 6. It reads as below:'With reference to your appeal dated 23-10-65 addressed...
Tag this Judgment!Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Zonal Offi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All270; (1969)IILLJ607All
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It prays for prohibition commending the Munsif, Meerut, not to proceed with a suit filed by the second respondent against the petitioner and for quashing the proceedings. 2. The petitioners are the officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 6th July, 1964 a charge sheet was served on R. C. Anand, an assistant in the Stores and Stationery Department of the Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Meerut, Sri Anand was charged with acts of fraud, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of goods and articles of the Life Insurance Corporation. He was afforded an opportunity of explanation. The Inquiring Officer commenced the enquiry on 9th February, 1965. Sri Krish--nadeo Sharma, Advocate, Meerut requested the Inquiring Officer for permission to appear before him and represent the case of Sri R. C. Anand. The Inquiring Officer refused permission on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Kali Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All65; 1968CriLJ225
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. Kali Charan has been asked by this Court to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against him for perjury. The facts are these. He filed a second appeal in this court from the decree of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, reversing that of the Munsif, Agra, and dismissing his suit for the ejectment of the respondents. During the hearing of the appeal the respondents filed an application alleging that the parties had come to terms and prayed for a decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise. Subsequently Kali Charan appeared before this Court and denied that he had entered into any compromise. He swore an affidavit in which he alleged that his counsel had acted contrary to his express instructions not to enter into any compromise. On the very day when this application was made T sent for his counsel, Mr. Swami Dayal and informed him that a very serious allegation had been made against him and asked whether he would like to make a statement. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All207; 1968CriLJ721
S.D. Khare, J.1. In both these criminal revisions, which have come before us for disposal on a reference made by a learned single Judge, it has to be considered whether the bar of Section 197 Cr. P. C will apply in the case of a Lekhpal in Uttar Pradesh and he cannot be prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 218 I.P.C. without first obtaining the sanction of the Governor. Such sanction would be necessary if he is a public servant not removable from his office save by or 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. In both these cases the previous sanction of the Governor had not been obtained before launching the prosecution.3. The prosecution story in Criminal Revision No...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Liaquet HussaIn Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All148
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayina that the record of the proceedings of the meeting of the respondent the Regional Transport Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow dated the 7th of August, 1965 be summoned and be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari, that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent not to give effect to their decision dated the 7th of August, 1965 and not to issue any permits in pursuance of their decision and not to permit the plying of additional buses in pursuance of the said decision. There is a prayer for costs also and also for any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Court may deem fit to issue.2. In the Lucknow Region there is a route known as Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route which covers a distance of 41 miles. In the year 1952 the strength of the buses plying on this route was fixed at 2. The strength was gradually raised till on the 31st of July, 1961 it was fixed at 27th. On the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Smt. Safdari Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ150All
S.D. Khare, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of suit for declaration that the order dated 10 November 1955 alleging termination of service of the plaintiff is ultra virus, illegal and inoperative and for the recovery of the arrears of salary not paid to the plaintiff as a result of that order. The learned First Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad, who tried the suit, dismissed it wish costs. However, on appeal the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit decreed. Hence this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. India Reconstruction Corporation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR204(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - In compliance with the direction of this court made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a statement of the case and the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reason to believe that income, profits or gains in the sum of Rs. 20,762 has escaped assessment ?'The instant reference has been made at the instance of the department. The assessee is a limited liability company styled as M/s. India Reconstruction Corporation Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the assessee).The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1948-49, declaring a total income of Rs. 48,487. In Part VII of the return, the assessee had disclosed that it had made a profi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »