Allahabad Court November 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.
Tarawati Devi and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC309
O.P. Saxena, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 6-8-1977, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (10th Additional District Judge), Kanpur, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to Maiku La and Rs. 13,000/- as compensation to Smt. Tarawati.2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 27-1-1976, at about 10.00 A.M., near the Mahabir Temple on the road from Cooperagaj to Collectorganj, Police Station Collectorganj, Kanpur, one Ram Kumar met with an accident. Ram Kumar and Ram Dulare were going on the left side of the road from Cooperage to Collectorganj, Ram Kumar was holding his cycle in his hand. Motor Tanker No. UTE 5338, came from behind and dashed against Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar was crushed to death.3. An application for compensation was given claiming Rs. 2,53,000/-from the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Opposite party No. 2, is the owner of the tanker. Opposite party No. 1 is the Insurer. Opposite party No....
Shri Meghdoot Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD694(All.)
1 to 20. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 21. In ground Nos. 11 to 13, the assessee has raised the question of allowance of investment allowance with regard to the generator installed by it in its hotel, which is for the purpose of air-conditioning the hotel. According to the assessee, it was engaged in a business of manufacturing or producing articles and, therefore, it was entitled to development allowance in terms of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). According to the assessee, it was producing an article, that is food, and also it was air-conditioning the atmosphere and this amounted to producing a thing as, in the opinion of the learned counsel for the assessee, atmosphere was a thing. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, it was covered by Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32A. In support of its stand, the assessee relied on the following decisions : CIT v. Yamuna Cold Storage...
Smt. Kalawati Vs. Balwant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All124
A. Banerji, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this RA.F.O. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars a claimant from claiming compensation both under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M. V. Act) and under Section 3(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act). The point raised by the learned counsel is that the claimant is under no such bar where the claimant has different causes of action and the claim is made against two different persons under the aforesaid two acts. In other words, the contention is that the claimant is not to be precluded from making an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the owner of the vehicle is a person other than the employer of the victim involved in the accident. The argument is that since the compensation was not being claimed against the same person twice, but from two different persons, the bar of Section 110 AA of the ...
Ram Lotan and anr. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC391
B.D. Agarwal, J.1.This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, dated January 28, 1980. The dispute lies within a narrow compass.2. On August 22, 1977 at about 7.30 a.m. Laukush, aged nearly ten years, son of Ram Lotan, was going from north to south in village Tarni, district Allahabad, where he resided. He was walking on foot towards his left. Bus No. U.P.Z. 4639 belonging to the respondent No. 1 was on way from Allahabad to Sarai Aqil. It dashed against Laukush causing multiple injuries and he died at the spot instantaneously. The bus was being driven, it is alleged, negligently and rashly. First In formation Report was lodged shortly after at 8.30 a.m. A Claim petition was moved by the deceased's father, Ram Lotan, and the mother on February 22, 1978, claiming compensation in the amount of Rs. 45,000/- only Respondent No. 1 denied the liability.3. The Tribunal found that the bus in q...
Laxmi Devi and ors. Vs. Narendra Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC412
O.P. Saxena, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 30th November 1976 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad) awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,160/- to appellant No. 3 Radhey Shyam and Rs. 7,320/- to appellant No. 4 Radhey Mohan with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award and dismissing the claim of the remaining appellants.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Ram Krishna Mauji aged 48 years met with an accident on 29th November 1975, at 6.30 p.m. on the Kanpur Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Cantonment, Allahabad. He was employed in the Government Press, Allahabad and was going home in a risckshaw. Opposite party do. 1 is the owner of the truck No. U.T.W. 909. Opposite No. 2 is the insurer of the truck. The truck came from the opposite direction and dashed against the rickshaw. Ram Krishna Mauji was thrown on the ground. He sustained severe injuries r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Bans Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR209(All); [1985]22TAXMAN53(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. These are the two applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, for asking the Tribunal to refer the following questions to this court:Assessment year 1973-74 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had discharged its burden to rebut the presumption of concealment ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is admittedly attracted, the Tribunal's requirement of positive evidence of concealment is legally correct ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that penalty is not leviable ?' Assessment year 1974-75 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not imposable in the ab...
Smt. Krishna Devi Vs. Additional Civil Judge, Bijnor and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All131
ORDERK.C. Dhuliya, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought a prayer for quashing the order Dt. 1st May, 1984 (Annexure-III to the writ petition), passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Bijnor, in Matrimonial Suit No. 213 of 1982.2. The facts in brief are that the parties were married according to Hindu religious rites on 13th Feb. 1977. A petition under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) was filed on 28th Sept. 1982 by the husband, Dr. Susheel Kumar Sharma (Respondent 2). It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner, Smt. Krishna Devi, left her home on 29th July, 1977, without any reason and since then she is living at the residence of her parents. Respondent 2. who has filed the Matrimonial Suit before the Trial Court, has stated that he has made all the efforts to bring her back to his house, but was not successful. In the petition for restoration of conjugal rights no impalatable allegations are made against the petitioner by the respondent. The petiti...
M.C. Sanyal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All193
ORDERB.D. Agrawal, J.1. These connected petitions under Article 226 of the constitution are directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Dehra Dun, dated Nov. 9, 1982, in proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. One Lieutenant Colonel D. Sanyal was owner of the premises No. 26-B, Mohini Road, Dehra Dun, comprising of three dwelling units and having the total area of 7395 square meters. The covered area is 554 square meters. Upon the commencement of the Act, D. Sanyal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Objector') put in statement under Section 6(1) asserting that there was no surplus vacant land held by him. On March 23, 1977, he executed a will whereby he bequeathed the property to his three grandsons. The objector died on April 21, 1977. The legatees filed statements thereafter under Section 15 of the Act. The competent authority was of theview that the shares of these legatees under the will could not be tak...
R.P. Nautiyal and anr. Vs. Chandra Mohan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All118
ORDERM.P. Mathur, J.1. During the course of the proceedings of this. Election Petition, first an application A-8 dated October 5, 1982, was moved seeking deletion of the names of two of the respondents, namely the Returning Officer, Pauri and the Chief Election Commissioner of India. The point raised through this application was taken as a preliminary point for adjudication and by order dated 9-11-82 this Court allowed the application and directed the deletion of the names of these two respondents. The order was carried out. Now another application A-18 has been moved. It is dated 1-12-1983, and it is the disposal of this application, that is now being made through this order.2. It is pointed out that under the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 either the elector or the candidate but not both can present an election petition and the present election petition having been filed by an elector as well as a candidate cannot be held to be maintainable and...
Vijai Engineering Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC167; 1985(20)ELT3(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These four writ petitions raise common questions and as such are being decided together. 2. The account books of the petitioner, in of the writ petitions have been seized and the petitioner Ms been served, with a notice to show cause as to why excise duty may not belevied on it. The account book as well as goods of the petitioners in two of the writ petition have been seized and similar show cause notices have been served on them, In the fourth writ petition some goods have been seized and' the prayers is may be directed, to be returned and the respondents may be restrained from imposing any Excise Duty on the petitioner. A perusal of the notices to show cause indicates that the case of the respondents is that the petitioners have, been manufacturing excisable commodities valued at crores have been 'selling the same without payment of execise duty. The book of accounts which have been seized are apparently being retained as evidence to substantiate the aforesaid case of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »