Allahabad Court March 1985 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.
Firm Shri Veer Glass Works Vs. Firm Sonpal Vidya Charan Glass Bangles ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All2
ORDERB.D. Agrawal, J. 1. The short question raised in this petition is whether in a case where this Court has in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction declined to grant stay of execution in exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 5(1), of Civil P.C., it remains open to the execution Court to stay sale of immovable property m execution of the decree m exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 6(2), C.P.C. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents for recovery of certain amount of money. Against the decree, there is first appeal filed at the instance of the respondents which is pending decision before this Court An application was made before this Court by the respondents for execution of the decree being stayed which has, however, been rejected under Order 41, Rule 5(1) of Civil P.C. In execution of the decree the certain immovable property belonging to the respondents has since been attached. The question arose of sale thereof. The judgment-debtors made application under ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jangi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(All)55; [1986]157ITR119(All); [1986]27TAXMAN521(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These eight applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Allahabad. They pertain to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75, The assessee, opposite party, apart from the returned wealth in respect of the aforesaid assessment years, made a voluntary disclosure also of his wealth in pursuance of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). The Wealth-tax Officer, however, initiated proceedings against the assessee for imposition of penalty and passed separate orders imposing penalty on the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. Against these orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. These appeals were, however, dismissed by a consolidated order dated January 12, 1981. The matter was taken up by the assessee in further ap...
Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD163(All.)
1. The assessee is a company and the proceedings relates to its assessment for the assessment year 1977-78. The main issue involved is whether the assessment for the year as made on 25-9-1980 under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is barred by limitation which in turn depends on the answer to the question whether the provisions of Section 144B are applicable in this case.2. The relevant facts in brief are that by a notification issued on 31-7-1977 under Section 125A of the Act, the concurrent jurisdiction over the assessee for the purpose of the assessment was conferred on the IAC, Allahabad. Ordinary jurisdiction over the assessee for the purpose of assessment, etc., vested in the ITO. The territorial or the administrative IAC over the ITO is the IAC, Gorakhpur. It is on record that the IAC, Allahabad, issued a comprehensive letter dated 8-11-1979 giving certain guidelines/instructions to the ITO for proceeding with the assessee's assess...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Radhika Ranjan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD457(All.)
1. Since a common contention is involved in the above appeals and they were also argued by Shri Radhika Ranjan for himself and for Shri Krishna Das with common arguments, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Both the above assessees are partners in the firm of Krishna Das Radhika Ranjan. Shri Krishna Das borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000 from the above firm. Shri Radhika Ranjan on the other hand, borrowed Rs. 60,000 from the same firm. Both these persons kept these amounts in fixed deposits with the bank. On the securities of these fixed deposits, the firm Krishna Das Radhika Ranjan took overdrafts.3. Both the above assessees claimed exemption from wealth-tax with regard to the fixed deposits which were also allowed. The WTO has wrongly noted the section of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') as 5(1)(xv). The exemption actually is allowable under Section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Act. At the same time, both these assessees also claimed that they be allowed de...
Director of Railway Movement (Coal) Eastern Railways, Calcutta Vs. Aka ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All314
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The respondent 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in manufacture of block glass and glass bangles in Firozabad (district Agra). The respondents 2 to 6 are partners of this firm. To run the unit the respondents need steam coal -- a controlled commodity which they have to transport by rail from collieries situate in the eastern region of the country. Under the existing scheme, sponsoring is done by the Director of Industries, U.P. (respondent 10) within the specified ceiling limits. This is considered by the Director, Movement (Railways) (the petitioner) in the light of priorities allocated under the Preferential Traffic Schedule formulated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 27-A Railways Act. The Director, Movement accords sanction whereupon allotment of wagons is done from time to time, depending on the availability of coal and coal wagons.2. In October, 1977, the respondents 1 to 6 instituted Original suit No. 298 of 1977 in th...
Nayat Singh Vs. Ramo Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC24
R.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an award dated 30th May 1985 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 42 of 1983. One Harkesh Singh who was employed as a Senior Clerk in Vishnu Prayag, Construction Division II, Pipalkoti (Chamoli) was travelling in jeep No. SRM 2522. This jeep met with an accident with bus No. RTS 337 with the result that Harkesh Singh suffered serious injuries and died in the Government Hospital, Rudra Prayag where be was removed for treatment. His widow Smt. Ramo Devi made a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Appellant No. 1 was the driver of the bus at the time when the accident took place. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the bus and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with which the bus was insured. The claim was contested by the appellant. It was allowed on the 30th May 1985 by the award appealed against whereby a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›