Allahabad Court May 1982 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.
Sodhi Transport Company and anr. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC440(All)
K.N. Seth, j. 1. By means of these petitions the petitioners have challenged their liability to tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) principally on the ground that Section 28-B of the Act and rule 87 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules are ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.2. The case set up by the petitioners is that they carry on the business of transporting goods from one State to another throughout the territory of India either in vehicles owned by them or hired from others. The petitioners' offices outside the State of Uttar Pradesh book goods of various customers for transportation to various States other than the State of Uttar Pradesh. The vehicles carrying these goods transported from a State outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to a different State pass through the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sometimes when the journey of the vehicles is too long from one State to another State, the goods brought in by the vehicles are unloaded in the State ...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1998
A.S. Srivastava, J.1. These four connected appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 9-3-1978 of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in S. T. No. A-195 of 1974 in which these appellants along with five others were tried for offences under Sections 147, 452, 332/149, 435/149 and 395, I.P.C. By this order all these appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. Sixteen of them, viz. Shakti Dutt Tyagi, Jagdish Prasad Pahalwan, Zarif, Master Karan Singh. Master Mahendra Singh, Prem Singh, Trilok Singh, Mohan Lal, Surendra Kumar, Shankar, Pramod Kumar (son of Satya Prakash). Som Prakash, Jeet Ram, Jai Narayan, Jagdish Lamba and Kukoo alias Rajtendra have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment (to run concurrently) under Sections 147, 452/332/149, 435/149 I.P.C. The remaining five, namely, Pramod Kumar (s/o Chhote Lal), Ramesh. Gauri Shankar, Hari Om and Shashi Gulathi have been acquitted of these charges also.2. The pro...
Vidya Ram Gupta Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC154(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. For the assessment year 1969-70 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on an estimated turnover of Rs. 1,17,000. Against the order of assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal which was, however, dismissed on 5th October, 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision which was pending at the relevant time.2. The Sales Tax Officer initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. In these proceedings one-third share in the house and five shops, situated in Sadar Bazar, Saurikh, district Farrukhabad, besides other properties, were attached. The one-third share in the house and the five shops were put to auction sale on 13th November, 1975. The properties were knocked down in favour of Ram Das, respondent No. 3, for a sum of Rs. 13,000.3. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur, by his order dated 18th September, 1976. The assessment order was annulled and the case was remanded...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. R.P. Gupta and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC218(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., has assailed in this revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, setting aside the penalty imposed upon M/s. R. P. Gupta and Company, a dealer who is the opposite party in this revision.2. The dealer carries on business in furniture. On 2nd September, 1973, a survey was made of his business premises and one Tilak Raj was present at the shop. He gave out that he was the brother of one of the partners (Sri R. P. Gupta). It is said that while accounts were being scrutinised, Sri R. P. Gupta also reached there. He was asked to affix his signatures upon two copy books which were found at the time of survey and had been signed by the Surveying Officer. Instead, however, of signing and returning them to the Surveying Officer Sri R. P. Gupta is said to have handed over those copy books to a munim and asked him to fun away with them. The munim did so. The copy books contai...
Tiger Hardware and Tools Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC126(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. These three writ petitions may conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. M/s. Tiger Hardware and Tools Ltd. and M/s. Tiger Lock Limited carry on business in manufacture and sale of locks and spare component parts of the locks and mathematical instrument boxes. M/s. Tiger Hardware and Tools Limited have challenged the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The other petitioner, M/s. Tiger Lock Limited, have challenged the assessment order for the year 1977-78 on the ground that they were entitled to exemptions in respect of sales of various parts of locks to various lock assemblers in view of the notification dated 30th July, 1976, issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.2. It is not disputed that the petitioners have preferred appeals against the assessment orders which are pending before the appellate authority. In the appeals the interpretation of the notification mentioned above is involved. In the petitions f...
Vindhya Basini Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2177
ORDERV.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application by Vindhya Basini Prasad and 14 others against the order dated 2-11-1979 of Sri S. S. Gupta, IV Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1977 in which he rejected the application 56 Kha and held that the suit was not barred by Section 195(1)(b), Cr. P.C.2. The facts involved in this case may be briefly stated. Bindeshwari was the only son of one Ram Karan, who had five other daughters. Ram Karan executed a registered will on 3-4-1961 in favour of Bindeshwari in respect of his property. After the death of Ram Karan on 26-10-1961 the name of Bindeshwari was mutated on his property and also in consolidation proceedings which started in 1964 and chaks were allotted to him and some of the agricultural plots in village Dhanpur and Dhanpatti allotted to him were also sold by him. In 1969 Bindeshwari died leaving behind his pregnant widow Smt. Sushila Devi as his sole heir, It was alleged that after the death of B...
State of U.P. Vs. Shiv Murat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2003
H.N. Seth, J.1. This appeal by the State Government is directed against the judgment and order of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 30th April, 1976 acquitting respondent Shiv Murat of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.2. Connected Criminal Revision No. 634 of 1976 is by Lal Bahadur the person, who had lodged the first information report in the case. He also prays that the aforementioned order of acquittal be, in exercise of revisional Jurisdiction, set aside.3. The charge against respondent Shiv Murat was that on 22nd Oct. 1974 at about 3 A. M. in House No. 176, Chak Niratul, police station Khuldabad, Allahabad he committed the murder of Santosh Narain Tripathi by inflicting a number of stab wounds on him and was thus liable for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.4. Briefly stated, the case for the prosecution was that accused Shiv Murat and deceased Santosh Narain Tripathi were the residents of one and the same village. Deceased Santosh Nara...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Yogendra Nath Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All385; [1984]56CompCas421(All)
K.N. Singh, J.1. These are two first Appeals from order against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 28-8-1975, which involve common questions of law and facts. The two appeals are therefore disposed of by a common order,2. On 3-11-1969, at about 10 A. KVinod Kumar aged about 11 years, astudent of class IX, and Pramod Kumaraged about 13 years, two real brothers,were going on a bicycle. Vinod Kumarwas driving the cycle while PramodKumar was sitting on the carrier. Whilethe two boys were proceeding from thecrossing of Beli Road towards the districtcivil courts a car coming from the opposite direction knocked down the cycleas a result of which the two boys gotserious injuries and the cycle got entangled with the car. Pramod Kumarwho was pushed to hospital died on7-11-1969. Vinod Kumar receivedinjuries but he survived. SriT. Ramabhadran, I. C. S. a Judge of theHigh Court, was registered owner of thecar U. P. R. 7244 which was insuredwith the General Insurance Companyand ...
Devi Charan Sri Chand, Mirzapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All396
K.P. Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1050/- for short delivery of goods.2. According to the plaintiff, Mangal Prasad, defendant No. 2, had consigned nine bags brass scrap weighing 414 kgs. at Sitamarhi for being carried to Chilh under Railway Receipt No. 437248 on behalf of the plaintiff as well as for the plaintiff. The plaintiff appellant took delivery at Chilh and it was found that 134 kgs. brass scrap was less due to acts of pilferage causing a loss of Rs. 1045.20.The plaintiff after serving registered notices brought a suit for the relief mentioned above.3. The defendant Union of India had contested the suit and had alleged that the plaintiff was not owner of the goods hence not entitled to maintain the suit. The plaintiff was only endorsee and nominee for the purpose of taking delivery and as such the plaintiff could not in law maintain the suit. The defendant had also denied that there was any negligence or mistake on the...
Sunil K.R. Sahastrabudhey Vs. Director, I.i.T., Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All398
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the relief of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, dated 11th Oct. 1979 (Annexure '5') requiring the petitioner to submit his thesis in English instead of in Hindi, and further for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioner's thesis submitted in Hindi and to award him the Ph. D Degree.2. In the month of July 1971, the petitioner, after obtaining M. Sc. Degree in Chemistry, joined Ph. D programme in Chemistry, in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for admission in Ph. D. programme in Humanities Social Sciences.' He was admitted in the Semester beginning from Dec. 1971. At the end of each semester, he appeared for the examination and could pass the same to continue the programme by the end of the 4th semester. Throughout, his medium of instruction was English. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »