Allahabad Court February 1985 Judgments
Kwality Furnitures and Decorators Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC337(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This is a revision filed by the assessee against the order dated 11th April, 1984, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, relating to the assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee deals in wooden furniture. For the year in question its declared turnover was accepted and it was assessed accordingly. Subsequently it was discovered that its authorised representative Sri Rajendra Prakash Garg had received ten forms C during the year in question which was not disclosed at the time of assessment. Out of the aforesaid ten forms one was tried to be misutilised by M/s. Shah Engineering and Hospital Equipment Industries, Ghaziabad. Taking the estimated imports of Rs. 50,000 on each of the rest nine forms, the suppressed purchases were taken at Rs. 4,50,000 and its turnover was fixed at Rs. 5,00,000. At the rate of 10 per cent it was assessed to a tax of Rs. 50,000 under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Having failed in the first appeal the assessee went up in second ap...
Tag this Judgment!Bijai Bahadur and ors. Vs. Shri Shiv Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All223
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. In this second appeal, only a short question regarding due compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act has been raised. This was neither raised in the trial Court nor in the Court below. It is sought to be urged for the first time in second appeal here. An application seeking permission to urge this point was made but despite an opportunity being given to oppose it the same has not been availed of. Since this is purely a legal question, I have heard the parties on this point as well.2. The appellants are transferees from the original owner. It was plaintiffs' case that the original owner had agreed to transfer the land by a written document on 27-10-1968. At the time of the execution of the agreement, part consideration was paid while the rest was to be paid at registration for which three months' time was agreed upon. Since the original owner did not execute the sale deed as agreed and began to prevaricate in the matter and later when it was rumoured that...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Upreti Vs. B.D. Karnatak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All32
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J.1. This is a defendant's revision directed against the order dt. 11-6-1984 recorded by learned Civil Judge, Nainital Sri S.C. Sharma in Original Suit No. 92 of 1983 by which he terminated issue No. 2, a preliminary issue, against the defendant and held that the suit was not barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts in the court of learned Civil Judge, Nainital. The partnership was alleged in pursuance of an oral agreement as laid in para 5 of the plaint. Parties were to invest equal amounts in the venture and share the profit and loss equally. It was the business of running paddle boats in Nainital lake from May, 1982.3. According to the averments laid in the plaint partnership has not been dissolved even now. So the reliefs sought were : --1. That a decree of dissolution of the partnership business be passed.2. A decree for accounting of the partnership business up to the date of final dissol...
Tag this Judgment!Qureshi Crucible Centre Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC327(All)
Anshuman Singh, J. 1. The assessee has preferred this revision against the order dated 31st May, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, relating to the assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessee deals in crucibles. The account books of the assessee were rejected and best judgment assessment was passed. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee had deposited the admitted tax at 3.5 per cent whereas the tax was imposed by the assessing authority at the rate of 7 per cent, as such the demand for payment of interest was also made from the assessee. The assessee feeling aggrieved filed a first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who accepted the books of account but maintained the demand of interest. The second appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal also held that the assessee was liable to pay interest.3. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the Sales Tax Officer, Moradabad, while making the assessment of ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. and anr. Vs. Udai NaraIn Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC74
A.N. Verma, J.1. These four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of claims lodged in respect of the same accident. First Appeal From Orders Nos. 523 and 524 of 1980 have been filed by the insurer and the owners of the vehicle which was a passenger bus. First Appeal From Orders Nos. 671 and 668 of 1980 have been filed respectively by two claimants, namely, R.C. Rao and U.N. Gupta.2. In the First Appeals filed by the insurer and the owners the contention is that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed compensation and that on a true and correct appreciation of the relevant facts and the applicable principles, the claimants were not entitled to the amounts of compensation awarded in their favour by the Tribunal. In the First Appeals filed by the claimants the contention is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced.3. The relevant facts are that on 11-9-1977 a passenger bus no. USG 3577 was returning from Brich to Jhansi via Mauranipur ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Dulari Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas116(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. This is an insurer's appeal under Sections 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is directed against an award given by the First Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura, awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants-respondents as damages against the appellant as well as the owner and driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident which resulted in the death of the husband of Smt. Dulari Devi.2. The relevant facts are that Laxmi Narain, the husband of respondent No. ,1, was working as tank attendant in the water works at Mathura. On May 23, 1974, the deceased was going on a bicycle from his house towards Bharatpur Gate side. Near Ghia Mandi, he came under the wheels of Truck No. USE 4223 owned by Ved Pal, respondent No. 3, and being driven by Chhote Lal, the driver of the truck, and was crushed to death. The truck was laden with goods and was stated to be going on the wrong side of the road and at considerable speed. A claim was thereupon lodged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Raj and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC76(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. The short question for consideration in this revision, filed by the revenue, against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench, is: whether the product, namely, Roshan Shital Tail, manufactured by the assessee, is covered by the entry at serial No. 26 of Notification No. ST-II-1233/X-10(1)-1974 dated 14th April, 1974. The entry at serial No. 26(a), so far as relevant, is cosmetics and toilet requisites including hair oil, hair tonic, etc. Whereas, the assessing officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) [briefly A. C. (J) ] rejected the contention of the assessee that the product, namely, Roshan Shital Tail, is a medicine, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee, that the product was not hair oil but a medicine.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Before the A. C. (J), as many as 12 pieces of evidence were supplied by the assessee. Proof No. 12 was the carton in which the product of the assessee is supplied to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. the Licencing Authority, Pilibhit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All325
B.L. Yadav, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dt. 20-6-84 passed by respondent 1 (Annexure-4 to the petition), whereby the licence granted to the petitioner to hold the cattle market on the petitioner's hhumidhari plots was cancelled.2. The facts shorn of details leading to the present petition art: that the petitioner was the bhumidhar of plot No. 49, area 1.12 acres, plot No. 31, area Order44 acre, plot No. 47A, area Order 81 acre and plot No. 47-B, area 4.61 acres. The petitioner's father was entered as bhumidhar. The petitioner applied for grant of licence to hold cattle market on his those bhumidhari plots. The licence was sought from respondent 1 in accordance with the provisions of Kshcttriya Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam for the year 1984-85. Requisite enquiries were made and the petitioner was directed by respondent 1 to deposit the requisite licence fee and the petitioner deposited the same on 19-4-84. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Fasihullah Vs. U.P. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All129
A.N. Varma, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act from an order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against an order dismissing his application for being declared an insolvent.2. The relevant facts are that the appellant had filed an application for being declared as insolvent. The application was adjourned from time to time on one ground or another. On a date immediately preceding 12-5-1973, the Insolvency Judge sounded a note of warning to the appellant that no further adjournment shall be granted. However, on that date an application was moved by one Sabir Khan to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The learned Insolvency Judge rejected that application with the observation that the case was pending since 1969, and one person or another was being set up by the appellant to obstruct its further progress. It held that the application was not bona fide and rejected the same. The same day, the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(All)129; [1985]153ITR389(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the sale of timber from the planted groves prior to the introduction of Section 6A in the Agricultural Income-tax Act was liable to be assessed as agricultural income under the Act ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount representing the sale proceeds of planted groves and trees was a capital receipt and as such not taxable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,000 being the advance collection of rent was taxable in the assessment year in question or whether this should have been assessed for the year to which the rent related ?' 2. Counsel for the parties state that the questions involved in this case except question No. 3 have been a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »