Allahabad Court October 1984 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.
State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Vs. Sardul Singh Kulwant Singh and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All67
O.P. Saxena, J.1. These are three connected appeals against order dated 7-5-1984 passed by Civil Judge, Bijnor making a reference of the disputes to the arbitration of Sri R. N. Misra, Retired Chief Engineer, U. P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow.2. The facts giving rise to those appeals are that respondent No. 1 submitted three separate tenders for three different works which were accepted by appellant No. 2 Superintending Engineer, Madhya Ganga Canal, Construction Circle I Meerut. The contractor completed the works. There was a dispute regarding the amount payable to the contractor under each contract. Clause 34 of the Agreement provided for the settlement of the disputes by Chief Engineer, Madhya Ganga Canal, Irrigation Department (respondent No. 2). On 4-10-83 the respondent No. 1 gave three notices to respondent No. 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act calling upon him to enter on a reference and adjudicate the disputes. The notices were delivered to respondent No. 2 on 7-10-83. The respon...
Smt. Sudha Srivastava Vs. Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All52
R.K. Shukla, J.1. This first appeal from order under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C and under Section 82- F of the Railways Act is directed against the order dated 27th April 1979 passed by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad By this order, the claim petition filed by Smt Sudha Srivastava was rejected and aggrieved by the same, the appellant Smt Sudha Srivastava has come up before us by way of this appeal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that 103 Up Delux Express train and UPC Special train collided at Naini Railway Station of Allahabad Division on 10th Oct 1977 at 00.15 hours. The appellant through an application dated 7th Jan. 1978 presented on 9th Jan. 1978 for grant of Rs. Five Lakhs as compensation under Section 82F of the Railways Act, alleged that her husband Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava was travelling by the aforesaid 103 Up Delux Express train from Mugalsarai to Kanpur, died as a result of the collision of the aforesaid trains on 10th Oct, 1977. S...
Ravindra Singh Vishwa Mohan and ors. Vs. Assistant Sugar Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC47(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of the Assistant Sugar Commissioner (Revising Authority), Moradabad, dated 19th August, 1981, whereby he had enhanced the U.P. sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners and imposed a tax of Rs. 14,826.67. The petitioners were granted a licence for a sugarcane crusher on 26th November, 1980. The assessing authority on the basis of various inspection reports, etc., assessed the sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners for the relevant period and determined the total tax to be payable by them at Rs. 7,480.2. The Assistant Sugar Commissioner (Revising Authority), Moradabad, exercising his power under Section 3-B of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, revised the order passed by the assessing authority and enhanced the tax to the tune of Rs. 14,826.67.3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The couns...
Sudha Srivastava Vs. Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC9
R.K. Shukla, J.1. This first Appeal from order under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. and udder Section 82-F of the Indian Railways Act is directed against the order dated 27th April, 1979 passed by the Adhoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad. By this order the claim petition filed by Smt. Sudha Srivastava was rejected and aggrieved by the same, the appellant--Smt. Sudha Srivastava has come up before us by way of this appeal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that 103 UP Delux Express train and UPC Special train collided at Naini Railway Station of Allahabad Division on 10th October, 1977 at 00.15 hours. The appellant through an application dated 7th January, 1978 presented on 9th January 1978 for grant of Rs. five lakhs as compensation Under Section 82F of the Indian Railways Act, alleged that her husband Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava was travelling by the aforesaid 103 UP Delux express train from Mugalsarai to Kanpur, died as a result of the collusion of the aforesai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandu Lal Surajpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(All)90; [1986]157ITR346(All); [1985]20TAXMAN384(All)
Ojha, J. 1. During the assessment year in question, namely, 1970-71, the assessee-respondcnt, which is a registered firm, had five partners inducing Sri J. P. Bhartiya and Sri G. L. Bhartiya. These two persons were partners in their representative capacity as karta of their respective Hindu individed families. During the said assessment year., the partnership had paid interest to the aforesaid two persons in the sum of Rs. 18,585 and Rs. 12,372, respectively. The assessee claimed deduction of these amounts which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer in this behalf. The Tribunal, however, on further appeal, took the view that the interest appeared to have been paid to the aforesaid two persons in their individual capacity and allowed the appeal and granted the deduction claimed by the respondent. The Commissioner of Income-tax made an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, ...
Diwakar Prasad Dubey and anr. Vs. Prabhakar Prasad Dubey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All133
M. Wahajuddin, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit claiming that the (oil) engine in suit was the joint family unpartitioned property of the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 was negotiating its sale, hence injunction may be granted restraining him from selling the engine. It would appear that the engine was later sold with the permission of the court to the wife of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had come forward with the allegations that the holdings and cattle and articles of daily use were partitioned, but the remaining properties remain joint including the engine. The contesting defendant on the other hand maintained that the partition of entire movable and immovable properties between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had already taken place and the defendant No. 1 is the exclusive owner of all such property which fell to his share and the oil engine etc. having fallen exclusively to the share of defendant No. 1 is his exclusive property and the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›