Allahabad Court April 1985 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Netra Pandey
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD218(All.)
1. Since the above appeals involve a common contention, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a retired person. Among others, his sources of income are salary and interest. He was author of several books. By virtue of a deed of agreement dated 20-5-1968, he transferred the copyright of his book Bharat Varsha Ka Sampurna Itihas published in two volumes by Lok Bharti of Allahabad to his three daughters-in-law, namely, Smt. Padmawati Pandey, Smt. Malti Pandey and Smt. Badama Pandey for their maintenance and the education of their children. The assignment or transfer of the copyright was only for a period of fifteen years beginning from the date of the assignment. The deed further stated that after the lapse of the above period of fifteen years, the copyright was again to to revert back to the assessee, i.e., the transferor. The assignees were to forfeit all the rights accrued to them under the said assignment. I quote below the abo...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Steels, Mathura and anr. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All151
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against order dated 5-4-1984, recorded by Sri J. S. P. Singh, learned Civil Judge Mathura in Misc. Case No. 110 of 1982, U. P. Financial Corporation. Kanpur through its Managing Director v. M/s. Mohan Steels through Mohan Lal and another arising out of Original Suit No. 106 of 1981 by which the prayer of opposite party as incorporated in application 6 Ga under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and ex parte decree dated 4-2-1982 in favour of revisionists was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. The delay in filing the application in between 16-3-1982 and 3-9-1982 was condoned as sought by paper No. 54-Ga application by opposite party under Section 5 of Limitation Act.2. The aforesaid suit was filed for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura by M/s. Mohan Steels through Mohan Lal Gupta, sole proprietor, and another v. U. P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur. The injunction was al...
Tag this Judgment!Bachu Devi and ors. Vs. Pati Ram Sanwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC377
A.P. Misra, J.1. The present First Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th May, 1977 passed by the claimss Tribunal arising out of the claims Petition No.13 of 1976. By means of this judgment the claims made by the claimsant was dismissed.2. The claims was made by the widow and four daughters of Ghanshyam Joshi, the deceased.According to the claims Petition the deceased had gone to Dehradun for purchasing articles worth Rs. 10,000/- for presentation in the marriage of his brother's daugther.According to claims Petition on 20th January, 1976 the deceased was travelling by Taxi USK 8184 from Dehradun to Srinagar.The taxi belonged to respondent No.1 and was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company.The taxi is said to have fallen down at about 6 A.M. on 20-1-1976 into Alekhnanda river and was washed away.However, it is significant to note that the report of this incident was only lodged by one Madan Charan Sanwal on 22nd January, 1976 to ...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Reddy Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All154
O.P. Saxena, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for:(i) A writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of Directors, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad taken in a meeting held on 25-27 Oct. 1984 holding that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Board of/Directors after the date of his superannuation. (ii) a writ of certiorari quashing the Government Order recognising the Agricultural Institute as a minority institution; (iii) a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the salary of the petitioner for the month of Oct. 1984 as well as accumulated leave for two months and seven days; (iv) a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner just after his retirement. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Lecturer in the Agricultural Institute, Allahabad. The Agricultural Institute, Allahabad is an Associated College of the Allahabad Un...
Tag this Judgment!Bujjha and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1829
I.P. Singh, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by Bujjha, Sukkhu, Banshraj, Prasad, Ram Karan and Manna alias Bhan against the judgment and order of Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dt. 28-9-77 passed in S. T. No. 327 of 1975 convicting and sentencing the appellants as follows:Banshraj under Section 302 1. P. C. to life imprisonment, under Section 148 I. P. C. to three years R. L, under Section 307 1. P. C. to ten years R. I., under Section 323/149 1. P. C. to three months R. L, under Section 426 I. P. C. to three months R. I., under Section 447 I. P. C. to three months R. I. and under Section 452 I. P. C. to three years R. I.Sukkhu under Section 147 1. P. C. to one year R. L, under Section 323 1. P. C. to one year R. I., under Section 426 1. P. C. to three months R. I. and under Section 447 I. P. C. to three months R. 1. Bujjha, Prasad, Ram Karan and Manna alias Bhan under Section 147 I. P. C. to one year R, 1., under Section 323/149 I. P. C. to...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Rubber Mills Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, Lucknow Range ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC157; 1985(21)ELT646(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The case of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that it manufactures in its factory in the district of Aligarh rubber belting including 'V belt and other rubber products which fall under Excise Tariff Item No. 16-A(4) of Schedule 1 to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to it excise duty on the said item is exempted up to a limit of production and its production is below the prescribed limit. Its case further is that a notice dated 30-10-1972> a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, was served on it by the Superintendent of Central Excise M.O.R. Aligarh stating that the goods manufactured by it were processed cotton fabrics falling under Tariff Item No. 19-1(I) of Schedule 1 to the Act. The petitioner was required to show cause why necessary demand may not be raised against it accordingly. The petitioner filed a reply dated 4-11-1972 to that notice a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kalpana Srivastava Vs. Surendra Nath Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All253
O.P. Saxena, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed against by judgment and decree dt. 28th Mar. 1984 passed by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court whereby the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. 2. The parties were married on 10-12-1980 and they lived together for a month and a half. The petition was filed with the allegations that during her stay with the respondent the appellant humiliated the respondent by refusing to make tea for his friends. It was said that on the appellant's desire, the respondent got her admitted in a college for further studies. One day the appellant went on the pretext of going to college and did not come back. On 21st Jan., 1981 she lodged a report against the respondent and his relations for offences under Section 307/406/34 IPC and also under Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cases were registered against the respondent and his relations and warrants ...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC201(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. An appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was decided by the appellate authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Meerut Range, Meerut, respondent No. 1, on 31st August, 1979. The petitioners made an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 2nd November, 1979. A copy of this application has been attached as annexure 2 to the writ petition. This application was subsequently transferred to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, and is now pending before the said respondent. The case of the petitioners is that even though arguments were heard on the said application on several occasions, the said application has not been decided so far. A prayer has been made in the writ petition for directing respondent No. 2 to decide the said application.2. The writ petition was filed on 14th August, 1984....
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Dass Rameshwar Dass and anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1985All311
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act against the judgment of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, dt. 17-9-1984, rejecting the application of the appellants for stay of the Suit No. 161 of 1980, moved under Section 34 of the said Act. 2. Suit No. 161 of 1980 was filed by the Allahabad Bank against defendants 1 to 4. Defendant 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant 1 firm M/s. Jamunadas Rameshwardas, whereas defendant 4 Smt. Sushila Devi Bajaj is the proprietor of defendant 3 Hotel Sarika. She is the wife of defendant 2. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 3,78,018.70 Paise against defendants 1 and 2 with interest and for recovery of Rs. 5,39,284.04 Paise against defendants 2, 3 and 4. The basis of the claim was that defendants 1 and 2 had to pay the amount claimed against them on the ground of having taken advance from the Bank. With regard to defendants 3 and 4, the plaintiff pleaded that defendant 2 had guaranteed the dues of defe...
Tag this Judgment!Peepul Iron and Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(All)135; [1986]157ITR605(All); [1985]23TAXMAN290(All)
1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been sent to this court by post by M/s. Peepul Iron and Steel Industries Ltd., Factory Area, Fazalganj, Kanpur, through managing director, Bhanu Shanker G. Bhatt, adult son of late Sri Govardhan Dass Bhatt. Office has submitted a report that in view of Rule 1 of Chapter XI of the Rules of the court, the application should have been presented in the court and should not have been sent by post. In our opinion, in view of the office report, this application is not entertainable inasmuch as in place of being presented in court, it has been sent by post which is not permissible under the Rules of the court. This application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant may be informed of this order on the address stated above by registered post....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »