Allahabad Court October 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Purshotam Lal Vs. Inder Kishan Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas855(All)
1. These F.A.F. Os arise out of two claim petitions which have been filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellants and respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Two minor sons of the claimants, Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who were twins met with a fatal accident on April 3, 1968, at about 1.45 p.m. near Narauna crossing in front of Surya Sadan Civil Road, Kanpur, involving truck No. UPJ 633 belonging to the appellant and being driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 3. The truck is alleged to have been insured with respondent No. 4 Sunil Kumar is saidto have died on the spot while the other son, Anil Kumar, died on way to the hospital. The two claim petitions in respect of the claims arising from the death of the two sons were filed by their parents who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal. The claim petitions were contested by the respondents but on the relevant date the appellant and respondent No. 3, both absented (themselves) and their counsel were also not present. The evid...
Jeep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1980
Reported in: 1985(19)ELT68(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of order No. 13/66 of 1978 dated 26th December, 1978 passed by the Government of India under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 rejecting the revision application of the petitioner filed against the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 30th January, 1976 in Appeal No. 69-C.E./ 76 whereby the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, upheld the order dated 13th August, 1975 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad, holding that plastic torches manufactured by the petitioner were liable for the levy of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Tariff Item No. 1 5A(2) of the same Tariff.2. The petitioner manufactures flashlights, main bodies of which are made of brass, aluminium and plastic. Such flashlights are known as brass, aluminium and plastic torches respectively. For manufactur...
Ganga Prasad Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(All)83; [1983]139ITR1043(All); [1981]6TAXMAN363(All)
R.M. Sahat, J. 1. Family feud between real brothers led to the filing of a First Information Report on October 3, 1970, by Chaturbhuj Das Maheshwari, for the theft of jewellery, against petitioner No. 1, his own brother, petitioner No. 2, wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, their son-in-law. All of them were tried under Sections 379/411/424 of the IPC. On 14th July, they were acquitted and it was held that no theft of any property belonging to the informant took place from his room No. 77, Rani Mandi, Allahabad, and that he had not kept any valuables in his almirahs in the said house. The ornaments and jewellery (Exs. 1 to 82) were not proved to have been recovered from any hiding place from the house of Ganga Prasad or from the possession of Ram Gopal. In the operative portion of the order a direction was issued. The property Exs. 1 to 84 should be returned to Ganga Prasad under intimation to the I.T. authorities after the expiry of the period of appeal, if no appeal was fi...
R.S.G. Conduits and Tubes (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(All)185; [1981]127ITR83(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of assessee, M/s. R. S. G. Conduits and Tubes (P.) Ltd., Kanpur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, in respect of the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, stated the case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled for higher rate of development rebate at 25%, being priority industry within the meaning of item No. 7 of Schedule V?'2. The assessee is a private limited company which manufactures conduit pipes and tubes. The ITO, while completing the assessment for the year 1973-74, allowed development rebate at 15% only. The assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC and contended that as the machinery and plant for which the assessee was claiming development rebate had been installed by it for the purposes of business of manufacturing an article mentioned in Schedule V to the I.T. Act, it was,...
Ram Lakhan Ved Prakash Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1980
Reported in: [1982]51STC347(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is assessee's revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereafter 'the Act'). The assessee, a registered firm, carried on business in foodgrains and oil-seeds. It was duly registered with the department under the Act. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee did deposit a sum of Rs. 25, being the fee for renewal of the registration certificate but did not submit an application in form XIV for the renewal of this certificate. Rule 58(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, requires that every registered dealer who continues to be liable to registration shall submit an application in form XIV for the renewal of his certificate before the date of its expiry. The application would be accompanied by the certificate to be renewed and satisfactory proof of deposit of fee. Sub-rule (2) says that if the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the application has been duly made and the fee deposited, he shall renew the certificate and return it to the dealer. For...
Saddiq and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ379
B.N. Katju, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for decision is:Can an injury report filed by the prosecution which has been admitted to be genuine by the accused, be read as substantive evidence under Section 294(3), Cr.P.C.? 2. Section 294, Cr. P.C. runs as follows:294(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed:Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, re...
Ram Prasad Vs. Magan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All52
V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. The dispute in these appeals relates to a portion of plot No. 1622 situate in Mohalla Balkhandi Naka, opposite Government Girls Inter College in the city of Banda. In the eastern portion of this plot there is a mosque and graveyard. In the western portion, there are two kothas and a khaprail. 2. Syed Mukhtar Imam was the mulawalli of waqf Shia Masjid and Qabristan Qazi Nooruddin relating to the mosque aforesaid and graveyard adjoining it. On Aug. 3, 1953 a lease (Ext. 10) was executed by Mukhtar Imam in fav-out of appellant Ram Prasad in regard to the western portion of plot No. 1622. This lease deed was duly registered and was for consideration of a premium of Rupees 100/- and an annual rent of Rs. 3/-. 3. On Aug. 20, 1964 Ram Prasad sent a notice (Ext, 20) to respondent MaganSingh which was served upon him on Aug. 22, 1964, alleging that Magan Singh was his tenant of a kotha and khaprail which Ram Prasad got constructed in the year 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All121
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the First Additional District Judge Meerut deciding a reference under Section 37 (2) of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (briefly stated as the Act).2. In connection with the construction of Hindan Air field at Ghaziabad, the Union of India requisitioned a vast tract of land undes Section 29 of the Act. As the whole of the land was occupied for the work of a permanent nature viz., setting up of an air field, and the same had not been released after the period of requisition, the Government of India accorded necessary sanction for the acquisition of the land permanently under Section 36 of the Act Under sub-section (3) of Section 36, notices had been issued to the persons whose lands had been acquired. As a result of the service of notices, the properties stood vested in the Govt. free from all encumbrances. Upon the completion of vesting the proceedings for determination of compensation were taken over under Section 37 of the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›