Allahabad Court October 1987 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.
Rakesh Dhar Tripathi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All47
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rakesh Dhar Tripathi, amongst others, has sought:(i) Writ in the nature of quo-warranto : directing Akhil Bakshi, respondent No. 3, to show the authority under which he is occupying the post of Director General of Nehru Yuva Sangthan, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. (ii) Mandamus directing the Union of India to continue the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan as the department of Union of India instead of establishing the Sangathan; and (iii) Direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India and the Sangathan to make appointment of the Director General and other employees through Union Public Service Commission. 2. Apart from the aforesaid three reliefs, some others have also been claimed.3. On 25th February, 1987, the Goverment of India, published a resolution of the Ministry of Human Resources, Development (Department of Youth Affairs and Sports)' regarding estab...
Banwari Lal Vs. Cegat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)LC249(Allahabad); 1988(33)ELT647(All)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4th December, 1986 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in an appeal preferred by respondents nos. 3 and 4. The Tribunal has adjourned the hearing of the appeal preferred by respondents nos. 3 and 4 till the decision of a civil suit instituted by the said respondents against the petitioner.2. It is averred that in the appeal of respondents nos. 3 and 4, in which the impugned order has been passed, the petitioner has not been impleaded as one of the respondents. The impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner, though it adversely affects his rights.3. We are of the opinion that the proper remedy open to the petitioner is to make an application before the Tribunal setting out the relevant facts therein, and praying that he may be impleaded as one of the respondents to the appeal, and also that the ex parte order which is being impugned in the pr...
Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR524(All)
1. We have heard Sri S. P. Gupta, advocate, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, at great length but we find that in the present case the assesses had filed a return of loss in the sum of Rs. 1,12,558. The net loss which was determined by the Income-tax Officer and allowed to be carried forward was in the sum of Rs. 1,06,995. This is to say only an amount of Rs. 6,000 as loss had been disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has partly upheld the claim of exemption of the assessee under Section 10(26B) of the Act. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee is that the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Act has not been considered by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed any reference application against the appellate order of the Tribunal. It, however, moved an application for rectification of the said appellate order of the Tribunal which was ultimately rejected by the Tribunal. It is against this ...
Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR522(All)
ORDER IN REVISION--Ex parte assessment--Contention that assessee was prevented from appearing before ITO on account of illness--Medical certificate produced in proof disbelieved by AACHELD:The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner under s. 264, raising one of the grounds that the AAC was in error in having rejected the medical certificate. The Commissioner has omitted to record any finding on the ground that the AAC erroneously rejected the medical certificate. It is, therefore, clear from the facts of the case that the Commissioner failed to record a finding on a vital point and, therefore, the matter deserves to be sent back to the Commissioner. Income Tax Act 1961 s.264 ...
K.K. Bhargava Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Hari Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC19
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the conductor of the bus No USR 8374 which was involved in an accident with another truck No. UST 6427.2. According to the admitted facts the bus in question had caused damage to the truck No. UST 6427 while it was parked infront of the shop of M/s. Mohan Lal Arhti at about 9.30 A.M. on 10 2-1987. The owner of the truck filed a petition Under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming damages caused to the truck. The claim has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 3500/- by the Motor Accident (Claims) Tribunal. The bus in question was admittedly owned by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation which was not preferred to file any appeal against the award. Only the conductor of the bus has come in appeal.3. The only question which is relevant for the purposes of appeal is whether at the relevant time the appellant was driving the bus or not. According to his case the driver of the bus was one She...
Sheetgrah Sangh, U.P., Kanpur and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All79
A.N. Varma, J.1. The petitioner is an association which claims to represent 450 out of 726 cold storages operating in different parts of the State. The association assails the validity of the U. P. Government Notification No. 847/XII-4-585-86, dated February 19, 1987 issued by the- State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of U. P..Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (the 'Act', in brief) fixing the maximum hiring charges which a licencee may charge for storing potatoes in the cold storage including any other service rendered in connection therewith at Rs. 23A per quintal for the period from February 15, 1987 to November, 30, 1987 or part thereof in the whole of Uttar Pradesh.2. The petition represents a class of litigations which have, over the years, become an annual feature in this Court. Each year that the Government notifies maximum storage charges under the said Act for potatoes cold storages of Uttar Pradesh have been making an annual trip to this Court on th...
Fairdeal Investments Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITR350(All.)
1. This petition for stay by the assesses raises an important point of law, vis., whether the Tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to stay the recovery proceedings till the disposal of the assessee's Reference Application by the Hon'ble High Court.2. Referring to the provisions contained in Sections 254(4), 256 and 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short), Shri Prakash Narain, appearing on behalf of the assessee has contended that on a reference being made to the High Court, the finality of the Tribunal's order is disturbed, and after the question referred to the High Court is answered by the High Court, the Appellate Tribunal takes up the appeal and disposes it conformably with the answer returned by the High Court. According to him, on a reference being made to the High Court, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is kept pending. He has further submitted that during the pendency of appeal, the Appellate Authority has the power and jurisdiction to grant stay of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›