Allahabad Court November 1983 Judgments
Daya Shanker Singh Vs. the Conservator of Forest (Southern Zone) and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All188
K.N. Singh, J. 1. By means of these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have claimed relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Conservator of Forest, Southern Zone, U. P. Allahabad, dated 19-7-1983, refusing to extend the period of licence to enable the petitioners Io cut and remove trees from the forest lots purchased by them. A further relief has been sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Conservator of Forest to permit the petitioners to cut and remove the trees from the lots purchased by them.2. The petitioners are forest contractors in the district of Mirzapur. For the year 1980-81 they purchased a number of forest lots in Dudhi forest division in the district of Mirzapur for cutting and removal of trees. The forest authorities entered into agreement with the petitioners which stipulated that the petitioners will complete the cutting of trees by 31st March, 1981. The petitioners made necessary deposits...
Tag this Judgment!Turab Ghosi Vs. Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All180
Kamleshwar Nath, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against dismissal of the appellant's First Appeal No. 218 of 1980 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sitapur, who confirmed the decree passed by Sri S. K. Saxena, Munsiff, Sitapur in Regular No. 151 of 1979, in favour of plaintiff-respondents Smt. Laxmi Agar-wal and Sandeep Agarwal, ordering ejectment of the defendant-appellant Turab Ghosi from a portion of house No. 216-430, Mohalla Vijai Laxmi Nagar, Sitapur. 2. One Smt. Shyama Devi Tandon, widow of Sri GUR Prasad Tandon, was admittedly the original owner of the house which was purchased by the plaintiffs from her on 19-2-1979. The defend-ant-appellant had been in occupation of the disputed portion of the house since the times of Smt. Shyama Devi Tandon. 3. The case of the plaintiff-respondents was that the defendant-appellant Turab Ghosi had been permitted by Smt Shyama Devi Tandon to live in the disputed portion (which consists of two rooms) as a licencee, Smt. Shyama Devi Tand...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Kapil Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1156
M.N. Shukla, J.1. Admit. Issue notice.The respondents do not propose to file counter-affidavit in this writ petition. The matter is of general importance, hence we proceed, with the consent of the parties, to decide the case finally.2. Shri Ramesh Chandra Kapil, a practising Advocate at Allahabad, has chosen to assume the role of petitioner as he feels greatly aggrieved by the rigour of the High Court Rule framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution. The provision under challenge in this case is one relating to applications for bail presented in the High Court. The relevant rule is Rule 18 of Chap. XVIII of the Rules of Court. It reads as under:18. Application for bail (1) No application for bail shall be entertained unless accompanied by a copy of judgment or order appealed against or, sought to be revised and a copy of order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application for the applicant and unless the accused has surrendered except where he has been released on...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahmood Ahmed and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC173; [1986]59CompCas291(All)
M.N. Mithal, J.1. A question of comparatively some importance has been raised in this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. Following an accident between Bus No. UPZ 8963 in which the deceased, Km. Saulat Nigar, was travelling on May 3, 1974, and truck No. WVK 9261 at Kanpur Mahgaon Road, a claim petition was filed which was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 15,000 was awarded against the insurance company.2. The insurance company has presented this appeal and Sri A. K. Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged three points. Firstly, he has urged that the liability of the appellant was merely to reimburse the insured and no primary liability could be fastened on it. As the award does not make the owner of the vehicle liable under no circumstances, that liability could be fixed on the insurer. He also urged that having recorded a finding that both the truck and the bus driver were responsible for causing the accident, the entire amount of compensation could no...
Tag this Judgment!industrial and Commercial Service Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC314a(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee and pertains to the assessment year 1973-74.2. The assessee is aggrieved by an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal which decided, in appeal, that the assessees had effected sales of diaries and labels and had not done any works contract.3. The assessee is a dealer in diaries, books, etc. He also booked orders to prepare labels of specifications provided by the customers and also prepared diaries of certain specifications. The assessee has been found to have charged a consolidated price for the diaries and labels. He has not charged separately for the paper and labour. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had charged a consolidated price for the products supplied, that would be the crucial test for determining whether the assessee was entitled to any exemption in respect of the printing charges. The approach of the Tribunal was, as the Tribunal expressly said so in paragraph 12 of the judgment, that 'the primary question in such cases...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1983
Reported in: [1984]146ITR249(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Being of the opinion that the Division Bench decision of this court in Shiv Shanker Lal : [1977]106ITR342(All) and a Full Bench decision in Badri Narain : [1978]115ITR858(All) , may require reconsideration, a Bench has sent the reference made by the Tribunal to a larger Bench. That is how the case has come before this Full Bench.2. In substance, the question of law is whether on reconstitntion of a partnership firm a new taxable entity comes into existence. The two aforesaid decisions have held in the affirmative with the result that according to these decisions two assessments have to be made on the firm : one, as it stood prior to reconstitution and another on the reconstituted firm.3. In the present reference, the question is of levy of penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The submission on behalf of the asscssee was that since a new assessable entity comes into existence after reconstitution of a partnership firm, penalty cannot be levied on...
Tag this Judgment!Khawaz Bux Vs. Mirza Mohammad Ismail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All83
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Being of the opinion that a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Kartar Singh v. Shambhu Dayal Lakhsar (F.A.F.O. No. 288 of 1976 decided on October 20, 1976) requires reconsideration a Division Bench has referred this appeal for decision by a larger Bench.2. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for an injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit.3. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that the defendant-respondent held a stage carriage USL-6100 which was covered by permit No. 1116. This permit was valid for Meerut-Gulaothi-Dho-lana Route. In virtue of two agreements dated August 14, 1961 and June 4, 1962 the defendant transferred the permit No. 1116 as well as the vehicle No. USL-6100 to the plaintiff on being paid the sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff hence became the exclusive owner of the permit as well as the vehicle. Subsequently the plaintiff replaced the vehicle by another one (UPG-4091). The plaintiff applied for permiss...
Tag this Judgment!Khawaz Bux Vs. Mirza Mohd. Ismail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC171
A valid and complete contract can be enforced by issuing a direction by the court....
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1983
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC174; 1984(15)ELT400(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. Petitioners Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar run a video cassette library under the name and style 'M/s. Sufi 'Video House' at 16/86, Mall Road, Kanpur. On 6th September, 1983 Shri K.M. Jain, Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Kanpur (Respondent NO. 2) asked them to disclose the source from which they had obtained 115 recorded video cassettes as also that of a video cassette recorder and a telephone instrument (all articles of foreign origin) found there. Ashok Kumar, Petitioner No. 1, claimed that the said articles were lawfully possessed by him and he also produced certain documents (12 receipts) in support of his claim. As in the opinion of the Inspector the documents produced by Ashok Kumar required verification, he sealed all the aforementioned articles and after handing them over to Ashok Kumar instructed him not to, as provided by the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), either part, remove, transferor otherwise deal with them till further orders....
Tag this Judgment!Kirat Singh Vs. Trilok (Tilak) Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All155
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand in a suit filed on the allegations that the property had been partitioned in a particular manner but still the defendants were trying to interfere with his rights. The defence plea was that though partition had taken place, it was neither in the manner stated by the plaintiff nor at the alleged time. It was contended that partition had taken place at a different time and manner. Although the fact of partition was admitted by both the parties yet the time and manner of partition was disputed. The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, the defendant-appellants sought permission to file as many as nine documents. In spite of objections by the plaintiff the court admitted these documents in evidence and proceeded to remand the matter to the trial Courtwith directions to frame additional issues in the light of the documents filed and to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »