Allahabad Court February 1985 Judgments
Khaderan Ram and ors. Vs. Sharda Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All34
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dt. 17-9-1984, passed by Sri M.R. Siddiqui, Civil Judge Gyanpur, district Varanasi, whereby he has rejected an application for appointment of the Receiver in Misc. Case No. 26 of 1984. This application was moved by Khaderan Ram and others, the present revisionists, and was contested by Sharda Prasad and others, the opposite parties. It may be mentioned here that Khaderan Ram and others approached the court with an application under Section 20, Arbitration Act, and during the pendency of this application an application for appointment of a receiver purporting to be under Order 40 Rule 1, C.P.C., read with Section 41 and Schedule 2, Arbitration Act and Section 151, C.P.C., was moved It was this application which on the contest put forward by the opposite parties was rejected by the [earned Civil Judge. The allegations in the petition for appointment of the receiver were that Mashal Talkies, situate in Bhadohi...
Tag this Judgment!Bansal Sugar Works Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC189(All)
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of the appellate authority-cum-Deputy Sugar Commissioner, Meerut, dated 15th October, 1982, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the demand notice.2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner has not been decided on merit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that a copy of the demand notice was not filed along with the memo of appeal which should have been decided on merit. For deciding the aforesaid question it would be relevant to refer to Rule 24 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, which provides the manner in which the appeal shall be filed, and reads :24. Appeals.-(1) An appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Nath and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1928
I.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by Vishwanath and another, convict appellants against .the judgment and order dt. 1-4-1977 of Sri Govind Prasad, IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 1976 convicting and sentencing each one of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to three months R.I.2. The record of the Sessions Trial was reported to be burnt. Accordingly orders were passed by this Court for reconstruction of the said record. The District Judge reported that the reconstruction of the record was possible. This fact is reported in the office report dt. 31-8-1983 appearing on the order sheet. However, the perusal of the order sheet further shows that the counsel for the complainant (on whose complaint the proceedings were started) filed certain papers along with an affidavit that those were true copies. Accordingly it was ordered by this Court on 18-24983 that the said papers be sent to the trial Court for reconstructi...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Vs. Amitabh Buxi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC345
A.N. Verma, J.1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same accident. Appeal No. 12 of 1979 arises out of claim petition filed on behalf of a minor Amitabh Buxi aged 9 a years through his father Gurdeep Singh Buxi while appeal No. 13 of 1979 arises out of claim petition No. 58 of 1976 filed by Anand Prakash Bhatia. The insurer has filed these appeals against award of compensation amounting to Rs. 28500/- to Amitabh Buxi and Rs. 11700/- to Anand Prakash Bhatia.2. The relevant facts are that on 1st August, 1976 Anand Prakash Bhatia was going on a scooter from Buxi Park on the high way towards Bijnor. Amitabh Buxi was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. A truck No. UPN 3675 which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against the rear portion of the scooter on account of which both Anand Prakash Bhatia and Amitabh Buxi were thrown off and fell on the road.3. The aforesaid claim petitions were filed against the insurer, appellant in the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Central Pottery
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC57(All)
Anshuman Singh, J. 1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed this revision against the judgment dated 5th September, 1984, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, dismissing the appeal of the revenue pertaining to assessment year 1979-80.2. The respondent-assessee carried on business in manufacture and sale of crockery. Book version was not accepted for the said year. Best judgment assessment was passed on the inter-State sale by the Sales Tax Officer. The assessee feeling dissatisfied preferred first appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the book version was accepted. The Commissioner of Sales Tax feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the revenue has come to this Court in the instant revision.3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the department has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the books of account under the Central Sales...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Biscuit Factory Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC344(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh Bench, Aligarh, dated 25th May, 1984.2. The only question for consideration in this revision is : whether the turnover of bread and biscuits relating to the assessment year 1980-81 is liable to tax. The assessee claims to be an institution certified by the U. P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kanpur, for manufacture and sale of biscuits and as such the claim is that it has been exempted by Notification No. S. T. II-5025/X-6(12)-79 dated 30th June, 1979 published in U. P. Gazette, Extraordinary, 1979. The assessing officer, however, took the view that manufacture of bread and biscuits was not exempt under the aforesaid notification, and therefore, the turnover of bread and biscuits was brought to tax. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) [briefly the AC (J)] accepted the contention of the assessee. On appeal by the Revenue, the order of the AC (J) was reversed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Hindustan Crusher and Fertilizer Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC272(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions have been filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 of,, the Act for the years 1978-79 and 1975-76. Since both the revisions have arisen against a common order, they are being disposed of together.2. The only question involved in these two revisions is, whether the bone which are crushed and sold by the assessee-respondent is a crush- d bone or organic fertiliser. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact that commodity manufactured by the assessee-respondent is organic fertiliser and is not crushed bone.3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the department has not been able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The department itself has been treating the commodity manufactured by the respondent-assessee as organic fertiliser in the previous years and the tax was always imposed treating it as organic fertiliser. The Tribunal has also ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All254; [1985(51)FLR294]
O.P. Saxena, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dt. 18th Aug., 1979, Annexure 2, whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Additional District Judge to the post of Civil Judge. 2. The subordinate judiciary consists of two branches. The Munsifs and Civil Judges belong to the U. P. Civil (Judicial) Service, The Additional District Judges and District Judges belong to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. Appointment to the Higher Judicial Service is made by direct recruitment from the bar and promotion from the U. P. Civil (Judicial) Service. U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1953 provided for appointment as Civil and Sessions Judge. The U. P. Higher Judicial Service (Abolition of Cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges) Rules 1974, abolished the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges and designated all Civil and Sessions Judges as Additional District and Sessions Judges. U. P. Higher Judici...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gopal Vs. Bachhulal (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All327
N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal directed against judgment and decree D/- 4-3-1974, recorded by Sri Prem Singh, learned Ist Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1973 by which he dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the judgment and decree DA 22-5-1973 recorded by Sri S. K. Saxena, learned IIIrd Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur in (Original Suit No. 178 of 1968) for redemption of a mortgage with possession.2. On 23-10-1905, Ram Prasad, father of plaintiffs, executed a mortgage deed of disputed house detailed at the foot of plaint situate in Kazipur street of Gorakhpur City for a sum of Rs. 125A in favour of Baldeo, ancestor of defendant-appellant. It was a usufructuary mortgage for a period of sixty years on the terms and conditions as laid in para 2 of the plaint.3. Mortgagee was free to repair and reconstruct the house and redemption wasmade subject to payment of the mortgage money, the costs of repairs and construction together wit...
Tag this Judgment!Nadir Ali and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC56(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The assessee manufactures and sells musical instruments. Its disclosed turnover was rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. First appeals filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) were dismissed and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer maintained. The assessee went up in second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut, which by its order dated 2nd April, 1984, dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved the assessee has come to this Court in the instant revisions.2. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee has not been able to assail the finding of the Tribunal. It has been found as a matter of fact by the authorities that the assessee was not maintaining manufacturing account as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the said fact by itself was sufficient to reject the books of account. Counsel for the assessee has also no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »