Allahabad Court February 1986 Judgments
Dujai Bai Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC231
B. D. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Hamirpur) dated November 3, 1979.2. The accident in question took place allegedly on 2/3 August, 1974. The place of the accident is described as near village Dharaon district Hamirpur. As a result thereof the husband of the claimant-appellant died. The vehicle involved in the accident, according to the appellant, was Bus No. UPI 9107 belonging to the State Roadways. The claim petition was lodged on April 7, 1978. The claimant made an application on 7th April, 1978 accompanied with her affidavit in explanation of the time taken in lodging the claim. No counter affidavit to this application or affidavit appears to have been filed from the other side but the Tribunal did not find the ground satisfactory and on this basis passed order declining to condone the delay in making the claim. The claim petition has, therefore, been dism...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC266(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 21st September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur, relating to assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee deals in foodgrains, gur; khandsari, oil-seeds, etc. Books of account of the assessee were rejected by all the three authorities and best judgment assessment was passed. I have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax. Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal urged that the grounds on which the books of account of the assessee had been rejected by the authorities are wholly irrelevant and books of account could not be rejected on the said ground. The fact which has been taken into account by the Tribunal for rejecting the books of account is that on survey dated 7th August, 1978, the godown was not opened for inspection of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Laxman Vs. Dr. J.C. Bass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All1
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed by a defendant in a suit for his ejectment from a shop. The order impugned in the Revision is dt. Nov. 22, 1985. It reads thus :'Case called out. Parties are present through their counsel. Heard them on 79/C moved by the defendant and its objection 80/C filed by the plaintiff. The question whether the building in question attracts the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 shall be decided by the evidence of the parties and not at this stage. Thus 79/C has no force and is rejected. Accordingly ...sic... 80/C is disposed of. Fix 17-12-85 for final hearing.' 2. Suit No. 425 of 1982 was filed on Nov. 11, 1982. The defendant had, eventually, to be served by publication. After repeated opportunities, the suit was decreed ex parte and the decree was put into execution. The defendant then made an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. which was allowed. The suit was decree...
Tag this Judgment!L.i.C. of India Central Office at Bombay Vs. S.P. Arya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR515]; (1995)IIILLJ467All
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The opposite party was an employee of the applicants. He was removed from service and a writ petition challenging the order of removal from service and the orders dismissing the appeal and review filed by the opposite party against the order of removal or service has been filed in this Court and is pending. The opposite party filed a suit for arrears of salary, dearness allowance and house rent allowance etc. for the period from 1st December, 1978 to 11th August, 1980 viz. the date on which he was removed from service on the allegation that the amount claimed in the suit even though was payable to him by the applicants had not been paid. A preliminary objection was raised before the Civil Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This objection has been repelled by the court below by its order dated 19th October, 1985. The present Revision has been filed against that order. 2. It has been urged by the counsel for the applicants that since th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Rice and Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC195(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 29th October, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly Bench II, Bareilly, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order dated 3rd September, 1984, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) under Section 22 of the Act relating to assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessee was carrying on business in foodgrains. The original assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on 11th March, 1980. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who by his order dated 3rd February, 1981, allowed the appeal in part and reduced the turnover. The Commissioner of Sales Tax feeling aggrieved preferred a second appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal which by an order dated 23rd October, 1982, affirmed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ442
ORDERS.I. Jafri, J.1. Rameshwar has filed this appeal against his conviction Under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by Sri Surya Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, by his order and judgment dated 30-10-1976.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased Tedha and the appellant Rameshwar belonged to village Chipli, Police Station Kotwali, District Banda. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 4-12-1975 at about 8 a.m. the deceased accompanied by his wife Smt. Paragiya went to his Ghoor outside the village Abadi and there ensued an altercation between the deceased and the appellant Rameshwar in connection with the Ghoor. The deceased charged Rameshwar appellant that he had encroached upon some portion of his Ghoor on one hand and on the other hand, Rameshwar accused the deceased to have intruded into some portion of his Ghoor. The altercation between the deceased and the appellant continued for some time and ultimately the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Indian and Overseas Trading Company, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All196
D.S. Bajpai, J.1. This First Appear is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 11th Aug. 1976 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, Messrs Indian and Overseas Trading Company, Kanpur, for a sum of Rs. 49139.64 P. as damages on account of loss of six cases of Indian Bristles of Messrs Indian & Overseas Trading Company entrusted for transit of the defendant-appellant.2. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff firm, which was alleged to be a registered partnership firm, was carrying on business in Bristles with its Head Office at Kanpur and in pursuance to an order received by the plaintiff from N. Wagman & Company incorporated, Philadelphia Penns; had to supply 44 cases of Indian Dressed Bristles. In pursuance of the said order plaintiff 1 entrusted to the Railway Administration atKanpur Central Goods Shed, 44 eases of Indian Dressed Bristles under Railway Receipt No. 163326 on 30th Jan. 1968 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Priya Dass Vs. Assistant Valuation Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: [1986]160ITR566(All)
1. The petitioner has received a notice addressed to Smt. Kapoori Devi from the Assistant Valuation Officer, Income-tax Department, Allahabad, mentioning that the Wealth-tax Officer, Gorakhpur, has referred the matter with regard to the valuation of the assets mentioned in the notice to him and in that connection, he would be inspecting the property on February 10, 1986. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays that the said notice be quashed.2. It appears that the reference was made by the Wealth-tax Officer, Gorakhpur, to value these assets in certain wealth-tax proceedings pending before him. The petitioner has not given any details of those proceedings in this petition. According to him, he is not aware of the nature of those proceedings. The petitioner should approach the Wealth-tax Officer and raise whatever objections that may be open to him before that officer. In this view of the matter, we are not satisfied that any case has been made out for exercising the extraordina...
Tag this Judgment!Bir Chand and ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC157
Om Prakash, J.1. This appeal arises from the award passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut dated 29th November, 1977 awarding a total compensation aggregating Rs. 7,500/- for the death of the wife of Vir Chand, claimant No. 1. The remaining claimants are the children of the deceased. The deceased Smt. Phool Wati while travelling on 13th July, 1973 in a Bainsa Buggi on Muzaffarnagar-Meerut road, had met a fatal accident at about 5 p.m. with the Truck No. USP 3577 coming from Muzaffarnagar side which hit the Buggi from the rear. The claimants averred that the truck-driver was rash and negligent in driving. The Tribunal accepting the case of the claimants, that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving, awarded Rs. 4500/- towards loss for the assistance the deceased would have rendered m agricultural operation and a sum of Rs. 3000/- was awarded for the loss of society.2. I have heard Sri H.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the claimants and Sri T.P. Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1986All362
K.P. Singh, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners claim different categories of flats constructed by the Bareilly Development Authority in Tribhuwan Housing Scheme. The flats in controversy are of four types, namely. Middle Income Group or MIG, Higher Income Group or HIG, Lower Income Group or LIG and Economically Weaker Sections group or EWS. The petitioners are claiming flats on the terms and conditions contemplated in the registration Booklet issued in the year 1980 when the Scheme was launched A copy of the Booklet is on the record The following table will show the necessary details with regard to the various types of fiats projected in the Booklet : --Type of HouseRange of IncomeCostInitial PaymentInterestApproximately monthly InstalmentsM.I.G.Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/-per monthRs. 64000/-Rs. 5000/-12%Rs. 551/- p.m for 15 years.H.I.G.Rs. I500/- and above per month.Rs. 1,15000/-Rs. 7000/-12%Rs. 1440/- p.m. for 10 years.LLG.Rs. 351/- to Rs. 1000/-per month.Rs. 35000/-Rs. 2000/-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »