Allahabad Court January 1986 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.
Smt. Gomti Devi Banarsidas Vaid Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD308(All.)
1. Since the above appeals relate to the same assessee and also involve a common contention, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a trust. It held 275 shares of Rs. 1,000 each in Bhagwan Industries Ltd. The total value of these shares was Rs. 2,75,000. The assessee sold these shares sometime in 1972 for a sum of Rs. 1,37,500 only. The assessee wanted to deposit this amount with a concern from which it could expect handsome return and at the same time there was also full security as to the repayment of the deposit together with the interest thereon. The amount after enquiry was deposited with the firm of Banarasidas Ramgopal of Bombay. The deposit was to carry an interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. It was to carry a floating charge on the assets of the above firm. Besides, two of its partners, namely, Shri S.K. Vaid and Shri P. K. Vaid had also executed personal bonds as security for the repayment of the principal and...
R.C. Gupta and Sons Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1582
1. Petitioner M/s R.C. Gupta & Sons is aggrieved by an order, dt. 16th June, 1976 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, in Appeal No. 90 of 1975-76 (Farrukhabad) filed under Section 18, Arms Act. It has accordingly approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Petitioner carried on business as arms and ammunition dealer in the city of Farrukhabad under a licence issued to it under the provisions of the Arms Act. On 30-9-1975, office of the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad issued a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the licence granted to it be not revoked on various grounds specified therein. In due course, the petitioner submitted its reply and the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, by its order, dt. 22-1-1976 directed that the licence issued to the petitioner in Form No. 14' (licence for sale custody) be cancelled. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal No. 90 of 1975-76) under Section 18, Arms Act, before the ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC399(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed this revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated January 31, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Kanpur, relating to assessment year 1973-74 arising out of proceedings under Section 15-A(1) of the Act.2. The respondent-assessee, a registered dealer, manufactured vegetable oil and washing soap. It obtained a recognition certificate for the year in question for purchase of raw material for the manufacture of vanaspati. In the recognition certificate the details of the goods to be purchased by the dealer were given and it was issued forms III-B for purchasing those commodities through those forms. In the recognition certificate mustard oil was added on May 23, 1973, but before that date the mustard oil did not find place in the said certificate. However, admittedly even before May 23, 1973, the respondent-assessee purchased mustard oil worth...
Rai Saheb Vishwamitra and ors. Vs. Amar Nath Mehrotra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas854(All)
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a company petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, in the matter of Jhausi Electric Supply Co. Ltd. The prayer in the petition is that an order be passed staying the so-called meeting to be held on December 30, 1982.2. Jhansi Electric Supply Co. Ltd. is a public limited company which was incorporated on August 19, 1937. The business of the company was the supply of electricity to the cities of Jhansi and Gorakhpur in the State of U. P. Both the power houses of the company were taken over by the Government. The position, consequently, is that now the company has ceased to carry on its business of supplying electricity.3. It has been stated in the petition that compensation in respect of the taking-over of the power house in Jhansi City has already been paid while proceedings are going on before the arbitrators for assessment of the compensation for taking over of the power house in Gorakhpur City.4. The last annual general meeting...
Dhan Raji and ors. Vs. New India Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas805(All)
1. Appellant No. 1 is the widow whereas appellant No. 2 is the minor son of one Ram Kishun, who met with an accident and died. The appellants made an application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Varanasi, under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. This application was made beyond the prescribed period of application and was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay. The application for condonation of delay was, however, dismissed by the Claims Tribunal and as a consequence thereof, the claim petition was also dismissed as time-barred.3. The first appeal from order has been preferred against the order whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was dismissed.4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents that this appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as no appeal is prescribed against an order dismissing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Ac...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Allahabad Divi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC28; 1986(26)ELT917(All)
A. Banerji, J.1. We have heard Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi S. Dhavan, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The question involved in this writ petition is whether the value of the packing material, in which the carton containing the dry cells are sold to the wholesalers, is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of excise duty leviable on the dry cell. A similar matter had earlier come for consideration in a Writ petition before this court and this court had taken the view that the price of the wooden/corrugated box packing was to be added to the value of the dry cell batteries for the purposes of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A special leave petition against the above decision is pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioner's claim in the present petition is that the question now involved in the petition pertains to a different period and in any event the law, laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Cour...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohammad Moonis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC484
K.N. Singh, J.1. These two first appeal from orders are directed against the award dated 20-3-1978 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mirzapur awarding a sum of Rs. 34,000/- along with interest of 9% per annum to Mohd. Moonis, the claimant.2. Iqbal Moonis son of Mohd. Moonis, claimant, died in an accident while he was travelling in vehicle No. UTB 6267 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', on his way from Robertsganj to Singrauli. At the time of his death, Iqbal Moonis was aged 32 years and was employed as Sales Representative in M/s. Agrawal Automobiles, Allahabad on a salary of Rs. 323/- per mensem. Mohd. Moonis, father of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', claiming compensation for himself and for his wife to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Corporation contested the claim on the ground that there was no rash and neglige...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›