Allahabad Court February 1976 Judgments
Prakash NaraIn Awasthi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All414
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This petition has been moved for enforcement of an obligation cast by Rule 51 of the U.P. Security Prisoner's Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the State Government to pay maintenance allowance to the dependents of a security prisoner. The petitioner is a security prisoner within the meaning of these Rules. The petitioner moved an application for payment of maintenance allowance to his dependents, his wife and two minor children as they had no means of subsistence. That application has not yet been decided. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate stating that he had looked into the file and directed an enquiry to be made through the Tehsildar. The District Magistrate also sent a reminder to him on 16-2-1976 to expedite the enquiry but it appears that nothing has yet been done. The District Magistrate has stated in the counter-affidavit that ultimately the State Government will pass the orders on the petitioner's application a...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Sagar and anr. Vs. Ram Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All415
O.P. Trivedi, J. 1. This is a second appeal by Vidya Sagar and Ram Sunder, defendants 1 and 2, respectively; Ram Das plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Vidya Sagar and Ram Das, defendants 1 and 2, Puddan defendant No. 3 and Razi Haider defendant No. 4. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiff held certain agricultural plots mentioned in para 1 of the plaint; to the North of these plots exists plot No. 340 which originally belonged to Puddan, respondent-defendant No. 3, and to the immediate West of the said plot there is plot No. 354 in the tenancy of Ram Sunder, defendant No. 2. Puddan sold the western part of plot No. 340 to Vidya Sagar, defendant No. 1 appellant. There existed a 10 Ft. wide passage over plot No. 340 in western extreme where it meets plot No. 354. The plaintiff claimed to have been using this passage for going to his southern fields and had also been taking his bullocks and cows over this passage to his fields. He, therefore, claimed having acquired...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Prasad Amrit Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC531(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following two questions for our opinion :(a) Whether,on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) was justified in considering the service of assessment order on an ernployee,who had actually no authority,as proper service ?(b) Whether,under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) was justified in dismissing the revision on the point that no application for condonation of delay had been moved, nor any medical certificate regarding the illness of Sri Mahavir Prasad had been produced ?2. In the assessment year 1963-64, the dealer carried on business in bhang. No regular accounts had been maintained by him and in the assessment proceedings, the dealer pleaded that he had a turnover below the taxable limit and, as such, no tax should be imposed on him. This contention was rejected and a best judgment assessment made and the turno...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mahabir Prasad Amrit Lal, Gopiganj, Varanasi Vs. the Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)181
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Revision Authority, Varanasi has referred the following two questions for our opinion :-(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.J.R. was justified in considering the service of assessment order on an employee who had actually no authority, as proper service (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.J.R. was justified in dismissing the revision on the point that no application for condonation of delay had been moved, nor any medical certificate regarding the illness of Sri Mahabir Prasad had been produced In the assessment year 1963-64, the dealer carried on business in Bhang. No regular accounts had been maintained by him and in assessment proceedings the dealer pleaded that he had a turnover below the taxable limit, and as such no tax should be imposed on him. This contention was rejected and a best judgment assessment made, and the turnover fixed at Rs. 22,500/-. An appeal was filed again...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Das Ganpat Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC345(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The assessee, a dealer in brassware and non-ferrous metals, disclosed his turnover for the year 1963-64 at Rs. 3,24,500. The assessing authority enhanced the turnover to Rs. 3,90,000 against which the assessee filed appeals and revisions but no success. The application under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was dismissed. This court in an application under Section 11(4) directed the Judge (Revisions) to submit a statement of case on the following question :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any relevant material for rejecting the assessee's account books ?2. The assessee did not maintain any manufacturing account as required under Rule 72(2) nor did he produce any stock register maintained for manufactured goods and for raw material. Admittedly, there was a difference in the turnover as per returns and as per books. The assessee's shop was surveyed twice-once on 30th October, 1963, and the second time on 17th December, 1964. I...
Tag this Judgment!Paramount Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC389(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1.The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, has under Section 11(4) of the U, P. Sales Tax Act, referred the following question for our opinion :Whether there was any material for the rejection of the assessee's account books and assessing it at Rs. 15,000.2. The dispute in the present case relates to the year 1964-65. The assessee dealt in non-ferrous metal during this year. He returned a turnover of Rs. 50,952.00 in respect of non-ferrous metal. It appears that during the assessment year in question, two surveys were made of the assessee's premises, one on 26th October, 1964, and the other on 28th March, 1965. When the surveying officer visited the premises, the account books were not shown by the assessee. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer accepted the book version of the assessee's turnover in non-ferrous metal but added to that turnover an amount of Rs. 15,000 as representing sales of brasswares in Uttar Pradesh. The addition was made by ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Paramount Trading Corporation, Moradabad Vs. Commissioner of Sale ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)103
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly has under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, referred the following question for our opinion -'Whether there was any material for the rejection of the assessees account books and assessing it at Rs. 15,000/-'2. The dispute in the present case relates to the year 1964-65. The assessee dealt in non-ferrous metal during this year. He returned a turnover of Rs. 50,952.00 in respect of non-ferrous metal. It appears that during the assessment year in question, two surveys were made of the assessees premises, one on 26th October, 1964 and the other on 28th March, 1965. When the surveying officer visited the premises, the account books were not shown by the assessee. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer accepted the book version of the assessees turnover in non-ferrous metal but added to that turnover an amount of Rs. 15,000/-as represented sales of brasswares in Uttar Pradesh. The addition was made by t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Banarsi Das, Ganpat Lal Vs. the Commissioner of Sales-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)124
R. M. Sahai, J. - The assessee a dealer in brassware and non-ferrous metals disclosed his turnover for the 1963-64 at Rs. 3,24,500/-. The assessing authority enhanced the turnover to Rs. 3,90,000/- against which the assessee filed appeals and revisions but no success. The application under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was dismissed. This Court on application u/s. 11(4) directed the Judge (Revision) to submit a statement of case on the following question :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any relevant material for rejecting the assessees Account Books ?'The assessee did not maintain any manufacturing account as required under Rule 72(2) nor did he produce any Stock Registered maintained for manufactured goods and for raw material. Admittedly there was a difference in the turnover as per returns and as per books. The assessees shop was surveyed twice-once on 30th October 1963 and second time on 17th December 1964. In the first survey the sto...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prempiari and ors. Vs. Dukhi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All444
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff alleged that he had a grove of 18 bighas and was Bhumidhar thereof. Trees were planted in that grove with the permission of the zamindar before 30-6-1962. The house in dispute is located inside that grove as shown in the site plan by letters ABCD Cha Chha Ja Jha. The plaintiff gave this house to the defendants about ten years before the institution of the present suit for looking after the aforesaid grove. After some time the defendants left the service of the plaintiff whereupon they were asked to vacate the said house, but they failed to do so, hence the suit for their ejectment.2. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 on the grounds inter alia that the house in dispute was constructed by his grandfather and he was the owner thereof, and that it did not lie in the plaintiff's grove.3. The trial court found that the house in dispute did not lie in the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sadik (In Jail) Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1398
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-6-1975 passed by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in Cr. Appeal No. 79 of 1975 confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 304A and the sentence of two years' R. I. under that section.2. The prosecution case is that on 13-9-1973 at about 1-30 P.M. one Sunit Kumar aged about 14 years, who was going on a cycle towards the clock-tower on Ambala Road near Darpan Talkies in the city of Saharanpur, was knocked down by bus No. USV 5226, was crushed and run over by the left wheels of the bus resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. The bus was being driven by the applicant who was said to be driving the bus rashly and negligently. The applicant had taken the defence that the boy was knocked down by another bus which speeded away and the applicant who was behind that bus had stopped his bus and was wrongly implicated in this case. His defence was not accepted and both the courts below found the pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »