Allahabad Court January 1986 Judgments
Ganesh Jewellers Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC259(All)
H.N. Seth, C.J.1. The assessee in the instant case is M/s. Ganesh Jewellers, Chowk, Lucknow. It carries on the business of dealing in silver ornaments. For the assessment year 1972-73, it disclosed its gross turnover of Rs, 69,446.97 and claimed exemption for the sales made to registered dealers against 3-Ka forms. The net turnover was disclosed at Rs. 9,207.54. Rejecting the accounts, the assessing officer fixed the net turnover at Rs. 5,00,000 which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 3,00,000; Aggrieved, the assessee went up in revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow and urged that its accounted version deserved to be accepted. In the alternative, it prayed for further reduction in the net turnover as determined by the appellate authority. The Commissioner was also aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow, reducing the turnover as determined by the Sales Tax Officer to Rs. 3,00,000. He accordingly also preferred a revision before...
Tag this Judgment!Bramhanand Rai and anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All100
J.N. Dubey, J. 1. This writ petition has come up for hearing before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court on his doubting the correctness of the two single Judge decisions of this Court in Brij Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp at Lucknow 1982 All WC 862 and Nathai v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad 1984 All LJ 324. 2. The brief facts of the case are these. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of opposite party No. 4 Smt. Madina Bibi. Petitioners Brahmanand Rai and Basudeo Rai filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming Sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the basis of the lease executed in their favour by the Zamindar Sri Mahadeo Rai on 27-5-1950. The objection was contested by the opposite party No. 4 Smt. Madina Bibi on the ground that she had purchased the land in dispute from Lugari Rai son of Mahadeo Rai on 30-9-195...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Electricals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC130
ORDER1. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the Union of India. The petitioner is, under an order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,04,500 as customs duty. It was mentioned in the order dated 24th November, 1983, that since the petitioner did not produce the required certificate for the end use and consumption of the imported material, he was required to pay the aforesaid amount within ten days of the receipt of the communication, failing which the amount would be recovered. On 13th February, 1984, the Assistant Collector also passed an order confirming that the petitioner was required to pay the aforesaid amount. It was also indicated that the petitioner could file an appeal against the said order. It appears from Annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition that the appeal was filed in the month of September, 1985, with the C...
Tag this Judgment!Chheda Lal and anr. Vs. Ujiarey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All127
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned I Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance, directing that a sale deed pursuant to the registered agreement to sell dt. 13-4-1966 shall be executed either by Sri Jagdish Prasad, son of Sri Sita Ram Das, erstwhile Sarbarakar of the appellant 2, who is deity, or by the Sarbarakar, whosoever is there at the relevant time and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants that Sri Sita Ram Das, who was the Sarbarakar of the deity (defendant 1) had entered into an agreement to sell, which was registered on 13th Apr., 1966, with the plaintiff. The defendant 1 was a Bhumidhar of plot No. 799 measuring 43. The temple, in which the idol was situated, was in dilapidated condition and that required im...
Tag this Judgment!Udai NaraIn Sinha Vs. the Council of Ministers and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1986All357
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The petitioner by means of this petition has prayed for the following reliefs: --'A. A Writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification issued by the Election Commission Annexure-2 to this writ petition. B. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to comply with the order passed by the Governor Annexure-5 to this writ petition. C. A writ of quo warranto asking opposite party No. 1 to show to whom they are responsible under Article 164(2) of the Constitution. D. A writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 2 to recover amount at the rate of Rs. 500/- for per sitting from the member of so-called IX Legislative Assembly as debt due to the State in compliance of Article 193 of the Constitution. E. A writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Governor of Uttar Pradesh to recommend the President ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Prasad Gur Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(All)131; [1986]159ITR986(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the assessee for quashing the assessment order dated. November 8, 1979 (annexure 1 to the writ petition), and the order dated March 20, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax tinder Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), which has been filed in original. The short question for consideration in this case is whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in making a single assessment for 19(17?) months by the order dated November 8, 1979. The assessee followed the Diwali year but later on made a request for change in the previous year from Diwali year to financial year. On the order-sheet of the Income-tax Officer on November 9, 1979, the following note was given:'The 'a' has claimed change in the previous year from Diwali year to financial year which is allowed on the condition that the income of the previous year Diwali, 1975, to March 31, 1977, will be asses...
Tag this Judgment!Udai NaraIn Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All203
S.K. Dhaon, J. 1. An elector, who appears in person, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the existence of the current Legislative Assembly -- the Ninth Legislative Assembly. 2. The term of the Eighth Legislative Assembly was to expire on 27th June, 1985. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued a notification on 30th Jan. 1985, calling upon all the Assembly constituencies in the State to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the orders made thereunder. The Election Commission on 10th Mar., 1985, issued a notification purporting to be under Section 73 of the Act notifying the names of the members elected in the various constituencies barring a few constituencies where elections could not be held for one reason or the other. On the same date, the Governor, in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gyanwari and anr. Vs. Jai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1986All367
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J.1. A suit was instituted by the respondents against one Swarupa. It wasdecreed ex parte on 25th August, 1980. About two years thereafter Swarupa died on 21st August, 1982. The applicants in the present revision who are the legal representatives of Swarupa, made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree dt. 25th August, 1980 which was allowed on 14th April, 1983. The suit having been restored to its original number the respondents made an application on 3rd October, 1983 for amendment of the plaint by deleting the name of Swarupa as defendant and adding the names of his legal representatives namely the applicants. This application was allowed on the same date. Subsequently an application was made by the applicants for recalling the order dt. 3rd October, 1983 on the ground that since no application to substitute the legal representatives of Swarupa had been made within 90 days of his death the suit had automatically abated and the order dt. 3rd October, 1983...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC379(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, at the instance of the assessee have been preferred against the judgment dated September 20, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, relating to assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Since both the revisions arise out of a.common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The assessee carries on the business of purchase and sale of matches. The books of account of the assessee for the years in question were rejected by all the three authorities below.3. I have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal for rejecting the books of account and also on the question of fixation of turnover and the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the year 1976-77 is perfectly justified and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Smt.) Bharti Raj Vs. Sumesh Sachdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1986All259
ORDERB.D. Agarwal, J.1. These are petitioner's applications.Facts relevant in so far as material for this purpose are that a child was born to Smt. Alka Sachdeo wife of Sri Sudesh Sachdeo on 16th Nov., 1981 at 10.40 p.m. in the Nazareth Hospital, Allahabad. Smt (Dr.) Bharti Raj wife of Baldeo Raj delivered twins the same day at 10.50 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. respectively in the same hospital. The petitioner's case is that one of these twins was a male and the other a female and further that the child born of Smt. Alka Sachdeo was female. It is alleged that the hospital staff in collusion made an interchange whereby the petitioner's male child was passed over to Smt. Alka Sachdeo and replaced by the female child of the latter. Sri Baldeo Raj gave an application to the Director, Nazareth Hospital on Nov. 20, 1981, expressing doubt that one of his children had been changed in this hospital from the labour room. The Director replied the same day after inquiry made by him that there had been no ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »