Allahabad Court September 1983 Judgments
Central Excise Department Vs. Danfoss (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC380; 1984(18)ELT238(All)
R.A. Misra, J.1. M/s. Danfoss (India) Ltd., Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, respondent no. 1 are manufacturers in Air Conditioning Machinery and Shri L. Lal, respondent no. 2 is their Material Manager. Air Conditioning Machinery is excisable under item No. 29-A, First Schedule of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghazibad checked the premises of M/s. Danfoss (India) Ltd., Meerut on 27-4-1973 and found the original copies of the gate pass no. 297, dated 25-4-1973 to gate pass no. 307, dated 26-4-1973, lying in the premises of the factory though the goods noted in those gate passes had been removed out of the factory on 25th and 26th April, 1973 and that was a breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner Excise detected that no entry in the Personal Ledger Account (P.L. A.) was made in respect of the gate pass nos. 304 to 307 issued on 26-4-1973 and this amounts to breach of Rule 9(1) and 173-F of the Central Excise Rules. A complai...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Newaj Vs. Kasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ930
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. Perused the preliminary order and the order of attachment and I do not find any error in the same. The argument urged is that after the Magistrate made an attachment under Section 146, Cr. P.C. he has become functus officio In that connection reliance was placed upon the case of Syed Zakir Husain v. State of U. P 1978 Cri LJ 1002(All), a single Judge pronouncement and the case of Gopi Krishna Tiwari v. State of U.P. 1978 All Cri C 340 another single Judge pronouncement holding that after attachment under Section 146, Cr. P.C. no power is left with the Magistrate for proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. In this case reliance was also placed upon the case of Chandi Prasad v. Om Prakash Kanodia 1975 All WC 558 : 1976 Cri LJ 209, a pronouncement of some Hon. Judge. The controversy stands completely resolved by a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in Shital Prasad v. Raja Ram 1978 All Cri R 369 in which relying upon the Supreme Court view, as quoted in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Dharam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All147
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. Dissenting with a decision reported in Smt. Sheelwati v. Smt. Ram Nandani (AIR 1981 All 42), Hon'ble B. N. Sapru, J. has referred the following question: 'Whether the view taken in Smt. Sheelwati v. Smt. Ram Nandani (AIR 1981 Allahabad 42) is correct in so far as it lays down that the validity of a void marriage being in contravention of the provisions of Setcion 5 (i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be gone into at the instance of a third aggrieved party after the death of the spouses to the marriage.' 2. The relevant facts which led to the above reference have been noted by the learned Judge in his judgment. It appears that Smt. Ram Pyari, the appellant, moved an application for grant of a succession certificate before the District Judge, Kumaun to the assets of her husband Tula Ram. It was alleged that the applicant Smt Ram Pyari was married to Tula Ram and that he having died without leaving any issue, she was entitled to the succession cer...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Sheo Shankar (Deceased Lr) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All92
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal from a decree directing the defendant appellant and the defendant-respondent to remove the construction which lay in plot No. 187 of village Atardiha in district Deoria. The site plan prepared by an Advocate Commissioner, paper No. 49-C was made part of the trial court's decree. According to that site plan only the triangular portion denoted by the letters A F D lay within plot No. 187, while the rest of the construction shown by letters A B C F lay in plot No. 185. It may be here stated that of the entire construction A B C D the portion A E F D was claimed by the plaintiffs to be an encroachment of plot No. 187 and out of that only the triangular half portion shown by letters A F D was found by the Advocate Commissioner to be in plot No. 187. The lower appellate court confirmed that decree; hence this second appeal.2. The plaintiffs' case was that having purchased plot No. 185/1 the two defendants were laving foundations of thei...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All46
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. A Division Bench of our Court has referred five questions of law to a larger Bench. The questions are--1. Whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights?2. Whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable on behalf of more than one petitioners, not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legally subsisting jural relationship, where the questions of law and fact, Involved in the petition, are common?3. In case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only one set of court-fees would be payable on such petition or each such individual petitioner has to pay court-fees separately?4. In case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. the District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All98
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been reported by the office to be 180 days beyond the usual period of 90 days of the passing of the impugned order.My learned brother K.N. Singh, J. passed the following order on 28-4-1983:--'This petition has been filed with delay of 180 days. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit explaining the delay. List thereafter.'In compliance with the said order, a supplementary affidavit of Janardan Prasad has been filed to explain the delay.2. The learned Standing Counsel contended that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the office report deserves to be quashed and the petition could not be dismissed on the ground of being highly belated. He placed reliance on State of U. P. v. Bahadur Singh (AIR 1983 SC 845) and Smt. Sudama Devi v. The Commissioner (AIR 1983 SC 653).3. In State of U. P. v. Bahadur Singh (supra) two learn...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Justice D. N. Agrawal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD39(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri Prakash Narain, Accountant Member - The assessee is a sitting judge of the Honble High Court of Allahabad. The accounting year for the year under appeal was 1-4-1977 to 31-3-1978. Up to 16-11-1977 he was a practicing advocate of the Court. He was elevated to the Bench on 17-11-1977. During the year under appeal, therefore, there was income from profession as an advocate and salary as a judge, besides some income from interest.2. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed that the salary received by him as a judge was not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). His plea was, however, not accepted by the ITO. He had received a salary of Rs. 12,133. The allowed deduction of Rs. 1,000 from this amount under section 16(i) of the Act. He, thus, brought to tax only the balance of Rs. 11,133.3. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) the first contention before the latter was that the salary received by the assessee as a judge of the High Court was not taxable und...
Tag this Judgment!Dhian Singh Vs. Tara Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All4
B.D. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the 6th Additional District Judge. Saharanpur dt. May 4, 1978.2. The allegations of the plaintiff are that on Aug. 25, 1971 the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement with him in writing for transfer by sale of the land specified at the foot of the plaint for a consideration of Rupees 12,000/- only. Of this a sum of Rupees 6,000/- was paid by the petitioner as earnest money to the defendant No. 1 on the date when the agreement was entered into and the balance was to be paid upon the deed of sale being registered. It was stipulated also that the sale had to be executed within Aug. 24, 1977 (sic). The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On Mar. 1, 1972 he also gave a notice under registered cover to the defendant No. 1 asking him to come over to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Deoband on Mar. 9, 1972 to execute the sale on receipt of the balance of the sale consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Leelawati Agnihotri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas836(All)
N.N. Mithal, J.1. A short but interesting point is involved in this first appeal from order. In a claim petition filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, an award of Rs. 12,000 has been given in favour of the claimants. The insurance company with whom the motor cycle involved in the accident resulting in the death of Chotey Lal was insured has come up in appeal and it is contended that its liability is limited to the sum of Rs. 2,000 according to the terms of the policy. It is, therefore, urged that the award in excess of Rs. 2,000 cannot be enforced against it.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has in this connection referred to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and according to him the maximum liability for payment of compensation which arises in favour of the claimants against it was Rs. 2,000 in view of Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. I cannot agree to this submission.3. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in two parts. Sub-clause (1) deals with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maya Chatterji Vs. Shiv Chandra Chatterji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All40
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a first appeal by the wife against the decree of divorce that was passed against her on 16th July, 1970 by the court of the Additional District Judge Jhansi, on the ground that she had deserted the petitioner, her husband for more than five years when the petition was filed in the year 1970.2. The petitioner husband, who is the respondent in the appeal, did not appear at the hearing in spite of due service of the notice of the appeal on him. The parties were married at Gwalior on 3rd Dec. 1965. The appellant was aged about 32 years and the petitioner was aged about 37 years at the time of their marriage. The appellant's father was dead and her mother was in poor circumstances. The appellant was accordingly living under the protection of her step-sister's husband Pulin Behari who was impleaded as a co-respondent in the divorce petition on the ground that he had illicit connection with the appellant since before the marriage; his wife, the appellant's step-sist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »