Allahabad Court November 1985 Judgments
New Cawnpore Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)19ITD360(All.)
1. The assessee is a private limited company. It was incorporated on 2-1-1979. Before its incorporation, a memorandum of association was drawn up on 25-12-1978. As per this memorandum it was decided that the newly constituted company will take over the business or businesses earlier carried on by a firm called 'New Cawnpore Flour Mills'. One of the main objects of the company as per its memorandum was : 1. To acquire, take over and take possession of the business and the undertaking with all its movable and immovable assets (including actionable claims) and all other assets, rights, benefits, titles, interests, approvals, registrations, permits, facilities, concessions, sanctions, privileges, licences, debts belonging to or held by the parties hereto in connection with the business, carried on by them in partnership under the name and style of 'New Cawnpore Flour Mills' as aforesaid and to undertake and discharge all the liabilities in respect of any debt or obligation incurred or any...
Tag this Judgment!Machhua, Matsya Vikas Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Allahabad and ors. Vs. Sta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All300
Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by amongst others Machhua Matsya Vikas Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Allahabad for a Mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not to allow Hira Lal, respondent No. 4 to undertake the mining operations over plot Nos. 702 and 703, situated in village Mohabbat Ganj, Allahabad pursuant to the mining permit granted by the District Officer.2. State of U.P. published a notification dated 2nd January, 1967, in the official gazette dated 7th January, 1967 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Minerals Rules) notifying a large number of plots which could be leased out only by auction. At the bottom of this notification what was recited was: --'IS ZILE MAIN ATHVA GANGA THATA ANYA NADION KE KINARE KE SABHI CHETRYA JAHAN BALU UPLABDH HO'.3. Claiming himself to be the Bhumidhar of plots Nos. 702 and 703, Hira Lal respondent No, 4 filed a suit number 142 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Munna Lal Anil Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC101(All)
K.N. Misra, J.1. Heard learned standing counsel and perused the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1981. The sole question which was urged by the learned standing counsel is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was legally justified in accepting the account books maintained by the assessee which were rejected by the lower assessing authority.2. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal very carefully and I find that good reasons have been assigned for accepting the account books maintained by the assessee. The question whether account books should or should not have been accepted by the Tribunal is purely a question of fact and it raises no question of law so as to call for interference by this Court in revision filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. It has been held by me in Sales Tax Revision No. 620 of 1982 (Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Shyam Lal ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Allied Surgical Emporium (Agencies)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: [1986]63STC331(All)
K.N. Misra, J.1. The opposite party-assessee carries on business of manufacturing and selling, among other items, catguts-sutures. For the assessment year 1973-74 he disclosed his turnover at Rs. 3,82,405.27, which was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, by the order dated 3rd March, 1975, passed under Rule 41(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules and a tax at 3 per cent was levied on this turnover. Later on it transpired that the turnover had been assessed at a lower rate and the additional tax had not been assessed at all. Therefore, proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, for short 'the Act', were initiated. In the original assessment the said catguts-sutures were assessed at 3 per cent treating the aforesaid goods as falling under the category of 'medicine and pharmaceutical preparations'. In the assessment order dated 26th November, 1977, passed under Section 21 of the Act, these goods were treated as surgical goods taxable at the rate of 7 per cent as unclassifie...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Electrodes Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC155; 1987(32)ELT520(All)
ORDER1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India representing the respondents we are of the opinion that this writ petition should be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal - where he can raise all the points raised in this writ petition.2. The plea of not affording adequate opportunity of inspecting the papers and documents relied upon in the impugned order, would depend on the facts of the case, which can be gone into in the appeal rather than in this petition. Similarly the question whether any prejudice was caused by not producing the branch manager for cross-examination would depend on what prayer was made for the same and whether his presence was necessary for cross-examination. This too will depend on other evidence and the facts of the case. All this involves sifting of evidence and examination of the materials on the record. We feel that this can be raised before...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Electrodes Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC156; 1987(32)ELT647(All)
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India representing the respondent. For the view that Heera Electrodes, Rampur v. Union of India and Anr. (W.P. No. 818 of 1985) this writ petition must also fail. The prayer made in this writ petition is in the nature of stay of the recovery of the amount of duty, the penalty and redemption fine against which writ petition No. 818 of 1985 (Heera Electrodes v. Union of India and Anr.) was filed. The petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order dated 8th October, 1985 on 11th October, 1985. The petitioner has three months' time to file an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has yet to file an appeal. He may do so within the time prescribed. We have perused the Circular No. 29 of 1982 which is contained in C.E. and C. Bulletin No. 23, Volume 2 which shows that the recovery proceedings are not to be resorted ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1441
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1.The case is under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. According to the first information report the main role is assigned to the present applicant, about whom it is said that Ashok Kumar Yadav and Kanak Singh alias Chhedi Singh took out his katta (country made pistol) and fired at the complainant and his associates with intention to kill. The result was that Vishun Deo Mishra, Baijnath, Pramod Tewari and Ramakant were injured. Vishun Deo Mishra fell down on the spot. Then the complainant and the witnesses challenged this accused, ran after him and Vijai Kumar tried to catch hold of him from his side, but the accused Chhedi Singh refilled his Katta and fired at Vijai Kumar who fell down injured. These two persons ultimately died.2. Bail is claimed on three grounds : Firstly it is contended that the accused-applicant moved the Court that he should be put up for identification, as the witnesses did not know him from before and his request has not been conceded and therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Narendra Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC154; 1987(13)LC511(Allahabad); 1987(28)ELT203(All)
ORDER1. The petitioner has, come before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the release of the seized truck and the goods contained therein which were seized by the Central excise authorities at the Octroi Check Post, Rajghat, Shastri Bridge, Allahabad on 6th Nov., 1985. The petitioner's case is that certain goods were loaded in the truck No, DEG 3333 at Calcutta to be carted and delivered to petitioner's firm at Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The petitioner's case further was that he had paid required duty amounting to Rs. 8,907.36 as required under Rules 52-A and 173-G of the Central Excise Rules. The vehicle along with the goods was seized on 6th November, 1985. The goods have not been released in spite of petitioner's efforts and application. The Central excise authorities had asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,907.36 and Rs. 890.74 towards excise duty and cess respectively for the provisional release of the truck and the goods. It is further stated that the petitioner's rep...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1445
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against order dt. 17-7-1981 recorded by Sri I. P. Mital, Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal who allowed criminal appeal No. 26 of 1980 preferred by opposite parties Pujan Singh and Yogendra Kumar Jain and set aside their convictions under Section 411 of the Penal Code and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months as awarded by Sri Rati Ram, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri on 6-10-1980 in case No. 293 of 1979 D.2. Learned Sessions Judge further reversed the order of the Trial Magistrate about the disposal of property and directed ornaments Exts. 1 to 4 to be forfeited to the State and the remaining ornaments to be returned to Yogendra Kumar Jain Opposite party No. 3 from whose possession they were seized by the police.3. This revision was admitted by my learned predecessor-in-office Brother J. M. L Singh, J. on 18-10-1981 on...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1987All113
K.N. Singh, J.1. Both these petitions involve common questions of law and fact. We are disposing of both these petitions by a common order at the admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are owners of the plots situate in village Sonera, tehsil Kichha district Nainital. Their land is being acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 6-5-1985 declaring that the land in question including the petitioners' land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kichha. The notification further contained a declaration that since there was urgency for the acquisition, the provisions of Sections 17(1-A) and 17(4) shall apply and the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. On the same date, namely, May 6, 1985, another notification was issued by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »