Allahabad Court September 1984 Judgments
Amarnath and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All163
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. In the basic year, the petitioners were recorded over the disputed land. The contesting opposite party Suresh Kumar had filed objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and had claimed 1/2 share in the disputed land on the basis of a compromise in suit No. 552 of 1956 as mentioned in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. It appears that the claim of the contesting opposite party was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the disputed land did not form part of the decree or it was not subject-matter of the partition suit of the year 1956. It was also asserted that the disputed land was gifted to the petitioners by Lakshmi Narayan (plaintiff of the suit of the year 1956). Hence on the date of the compromise the aforesaid Lakshmi Narayan had no right and interest in the property, therefore, the compromise relied upon by the objector Suresh Kumar was not binding upon the petitioners.2. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement ...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Brothers and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC318(All)
ORDEROm Prakash, J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the assessee, referred to as the petitioner hereinafter, a prayer has been made that the orders dated 28th April, 1980 relating to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 (annexures 11 and 12 respectively) for charging interest for non-payment of tax be quashed.2. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner returned turnover of the chains and straps meant for watches and admitted tax liability thereon @ 2 per cent, applicable to unclassified items. The Sales Tax Officer, however, treated the sales of chains and straps as the sales of accessories, and therefore, levied a tax @ 10 per cent on their turnover. The demand was accordingly raised by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner, then had deposited the entire excess amount of sales tax amounting to Rs. 8,027.84 for the assessment year 1965-66 and half of the excess amount for the assessment year 1964-65 and obtained a stay order for the remaining half amount. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh and ors. Vs. Bimla Rani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC265
A. Banerjee, J. 1. This first appeal from order arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V. Addl. District and Sessions Judge) Saharanpur awarding a sum of Rs. 24,528/- as compensation to the claimant Smt. Bimla Rani as against the two appellants and interest from the date of accident till the date of payment of the aforesaid amount @ 6% per annum. The claim against insurer M/s. New India Insurance Company was dismissed. The appellants, who have been directed to pay the entire amount of compensation, have filed this appeal.2. The accident took place in the city of Saharanpur on 5th Nov. 1977 in which one Arun Kumar, son of the claimant was fatally injured by the motor truck No. USV 8320. The vehicle was owned by Ranjit Singh and was being driven by Darshan Singh. Arun Kumar was aged only 14 years and he was son of an Editor of a local daily newspaper. He was crashed in the accident and was removed to the hospital where he died seen thereafter. Bimla Rani mot...
Tag this Judgment!Parag Lal Behari Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All34
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. This writ petition was referred to a Full Bench fry a learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration of the question whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad : AIR1976All433 required reconsideration in view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai : [1970]3SCR830 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided the case of Dalip Singh (supra) It is thus that this writ petition has come before us.2. The facts and circumstances on account of which the aforesaid point arose for consideration may now be stated.3. Smt. Murta, the grandmother of the petitioner, who had been appointed guardian of the petitioner under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, after obtaining the permission of the District Judge executed a sale deed on 27th August, 1963, in respect of certain agricultural plots of which the petitioner was the ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kanpur and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC52; AIR1985All44; [1986]59CompCas678(All)
A. Banerji, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the Award dated 6th July, 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum to Gulab Chandra Gupta, the victim of the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- will be payable by the Insurer defendant No. 2.2. The Insurer, United India Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kanpur has filed F. A. F. O. No. 461 of 1977 against the above award by the Claims Tribunal Jai Prakash Narain Gupta, the owner of the motor vehicle,which was involved in the accident has been joined us appellant No. 2 in the above appeal, There is a cross-objection in the above appeal by Gulab Chandra Gupta, claiming a further sum of Rs. 20,000/-.3. F. A. F. O. No. 466 of 1977 has been filed by Jai Prakash Narain Gupta, the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. He has come up against the award of the Claims Tri...
Tag this Judgment!E. Septon and Company Private Limited Vs. Superintendent of Central Ex ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC305; 1985(19)ELT57(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.The Petitioner Company, namely, M/s. E. Septon and Company Private Limited, is carrying on its business at Mirzapur and has installed a Woollen Spinning Factory and an Ice Factory. It manufactures woollen and shoddy yarns from the Woollen Spinning Factory and ice from the Ice Factory. The woollen and shoddy yarns manufactured by the petitioner company fall under Tariff Items No. 18(B) and 18(B)(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereas the ice falls under Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule. There is no dispute that the two commodities manufactured by the petitioner are classified under two different Tariffs of the First Schedule to the Act.2. The petitioner has alleged that the Central Excise Authorities are compelling it to obtain a licence for running the Ice Factory in pursuance of Notification No. 105/80-C.E. dated 19-6-1980 as amended by Notification No. 48/81-C.E. dated 1-3-1981 (annexur...
Tag this Judgment!irfanur-rashid Khan Vs. Rizwanur-rashid Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All271
ORDERJ.N. Dubey, J.1. This revision under section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20-10-1983 of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr striking off the defence of the appellant.2. The opposite party No. 1 filed suit No. 142 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bulandshahr for declaration that he is the owner of Firm M/s. Oriental Potteries. The applicant filed a written statement denying the claim of the opposite party No. 1 that he was the owner of the firm M/s. Oriental Potteries. Subsequently, the applicant moved an application for amendment of his written statement which was allowed on 12-1-1983 on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs. The applicant was granted 15 days' time for incorporating the amendment in his written statement and pay costs. The hearing of the suit was adjourned from time to time till 20-10-1983 on which date the defence of the applicant was struck off for his alleged failure to incorporate amendment in his written statement and pay the costs within the time allow...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Prasad Kesarvani Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC270(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. This is a revision by the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 against the Tribunal's order dated 23rd June, 1983.2. In this case the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) holding that the appeal was belatedly filed by the assessee and as no condonation application was given, the appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Dismissal of the appeal in limine was confirmed by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the question for consideration was : whether the report of the process-server submitted to the department, on which no witness was obtained, was valid. The Tribunal considering the provisions of rule 77 of the Sales Tax Rules, 1948, came to the conclusion that on the face of rule 77, there was no need for the process-server to obtain any witness. The argument of Sri R. K. Gulati, the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the report of the process-server without obtaining a witness, either for identification ...
Tag this Judgment!L.H. Sugar Factories Limited and anr. Vs. the Collector, Central Excis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC308
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The petitioners submitted a rebate claim on 6th November, 1975 on the basis of a notification dated 12th October, 1974 for a sum of Rs. 2,43,140. The claim was entertained and rebate in the sum of Rs. 2,34,904.45 was allowed. The petitioners however submitted a revised consolidated rebate claim for Rs. 7,28,683.81 and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,34,904.45, rebate in respect of which had already been allowed, the balance came to Rs. 4,93,779.36. The claim of rebate for this amount was disallowed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector, Central Excise. This appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, by his order dated 10th October, 1983 and the Assistant Collector was directed to recalculate the amount of rebate admissible to the petitioners and sanction the same within a period of three months of the receipt of his order. The matter was not dec...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Shanker Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(All)134
JUDGMENT : N. D. Ojha, J. - By this writ petition proceedings for recovery of a certain amount as Income Tax together with interest thereon and penalty are sought to be quashed. It stands admitted to the parties that the amount payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,63,036 as stated in annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit of Sri N. P. Khare filed in the present writ petition. As regards the first two items of the said annexure which represent tax and penalty for the year 1974-75 the case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that appeals against the orders of assessment and imposition of penalty are pending before the ITAT and an application was made by the petitioner before the ITO for staying the recovery of the said amounts as contemplated by sub-s. (6) of s. 220 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but the ITO has not passed any order thereon. A supplementary affidavit since thereafter has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 28-3-1984. Annexure-SA 5 to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »