Allahabad Court February 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.
Agra Concrete Pipe Co. Vs. Competent Authority, Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All232
K.J. Shetty, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated Aug., 1, 1980 made by the District Judge, Agra in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 1978. That appeal was preferred against the order dated July 12, 1978 of the Competent Authority, Agra constituted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976.2. Petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of concrete pipes. It has a factory building and also three huge ground level water tanks measuring 80' x 120', 40' x 120' and 40' x 120' separated by 6-7 feet. These are obviously meant for curing concrete cement pipes. The entire premises of the factory including the water tanks cover in all 10881.2 sq. mt.3. Upon coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the 'Act') petitioner filed statement before the Competent Authority as required under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Competent Authority after inquiry declared 6771.8186 square metres as s...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Radha Raman Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All272
K.J. Shetty, C.J. 1. In view of the importance of the question raised in the Writ Petition, the matter has been placed before us for decision.2. The question relates to the scope and ambit of Clause (b) of Section 2(q), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976) (shortly called 'the Act').3. The matter arises in this way :Respondent 1, Radha Raman Agarwal is the owner of the four plots of land measuring 1420,125,300, and 100 sq. metres respectively. In alf it measures 1945 sq. metres. The plots are located in Bareilly city which is a category C of the urban agglomeration in Schedule I of the Act. The maximum ceiling prescribed for such cities is 1500 sq. metres. The competent authority initiated proceedings under the Act for determining the excess land held by respondent 1. By order dated April 30, 1977 it was held that an extent of 445 sq. metres is surplus which respondent I is not entitled to hold. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lucknow w...
Kishna Beej Bhandar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC364(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. These are three revisions for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 against the Tribunal's combined order dated 28th June, 1986.2. The assessee, a registered dealer, carrying on business in certified seeds, claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of certified seeds. The exemption was allowed by the assessing officer for these years. Thereafter, the assessing officer initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, that the exemption on the turnover of seeds was wrongly allowed. He, therefore, assessed the turnover of the seeds, said to be certified seeds by the assessee, under Section 21.3. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and raised two contentions:(i) that initiation of proceedings under Section 21 by the assessing officer was bad in law;(ii) that the assessee was engaged in the sale of certified seeds and, therefore, turnover of that was exempted. 4. Since the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) acc...
Ram Niwas Singh Vs. District Manager, Telephones, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All314
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. This petition has been filed by a practising Advocate of this Court for direction to opposite party, the District Manager, Telephones, to grant him a permanent telephone connection. The claim is primarily founded on deemed registration in waiting list of Advance Deposit Scheme in 1981. Registration of applications in various categories, namely, own your telephone, special and ordinary category has been assailed as arbitrary. Clause 4 of special category which excludes lawyers even though it includes nurses, doctors and social workers is challenged as irrational. Violation of Article 19 is also claimed because by denying a telephone connection the opposite parties are interfering with his right to carry on profession. 2. Admittedly petitioner applied for a telephone connection in 1981 after obtaining form from commercial section of office of opposite party No. 1. In March 1981 a demand note of Rs. 800/- was sent to him. It is not clear if it was sent by ordinary post o...
Mohammad Ali Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All348
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue' Authority dated 8-12-1978 contained in Annexure '6' attached with the writ petition and also the order dated 18-1-1975 passed by the Collector, Nainital contained in Annexure '5' attached with the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was the highest bidder and had offered Rs. 42,000/- as the Tahbazari in auction of Town Market at Kichha, Nainital for the period from 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973. A deed of agreement was executed as is evident from the term of the deed contained in Annexure T attached with the writ petition. 3. It appears that on the report of the Stamp Inspector it was detected that the deed of agreement contained in Annexure T attached with the writ petition was deficiently stamped. Therefore the deficient stamp to the tune of Rs. 2727.25P. as well as the fine of Rs. 272-40P. was reported to be realised from the petitioner and info...
Mool Chand Rastogi Vs. Allodial Chemical Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas22(All)
A. Banerji, J. 1. This is an application by the petitioner, Sri Mool Chand Rastogi, for recalling the order dated December 8, 1986, ordering the winding up of the company, M/s, Allodial Chemical Mfg, Co. Pvt. Ltd. The prayer further is that after the above order is recalled, the company petition may be allowed to be withdrawn in terms of the compromise agreement dated January 2, 1987. The prayer in this application is supported by Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent.2. A perusal of the affidavit of Sri Mool Chand Rastogi and Sri Laxmi Shankar Trivedi discloses that after passing of the winding up order by this Hon'ble court, the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a compromise agreement regarding payment of dues of the petitioner. The compromise agreement has been filed in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Execution Case No. 35 of 1985, (Mool Chand Rastogi v. L. S. Trivedi) and the court has passed the order on August 20, 1987, i...
General Electric Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector Central Exc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC226; 1989(20)LC351(Allahabad); 1987(31)ELT882(All)
1. The petitioner M/s. General Electric Co. of India Ltd., Naini, Allahabad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Allahabad, to comply with the directions given by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) dated 1-2-1985 in appeal No. 23-C/Alld./85. The relevant portion of the directions as under :-'In the circumstances, the appeal succeeds on merit is accordingly admitted. The order of the Assistant Collector dated 1-3-1980, is set aside and remanded to the Assistant Collector with the directions for the grant of refund after examining the aspect of time bar alone, as the same is admissible on merits.' 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite several efforts made on its behalf, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, has not paid any heed not only to the request made on its behalf but also not complied with the direction of the Collector (Appeals). The learned counsel for the p...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Sai Electricals
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC342(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1980-81 by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order dated 28th November, 1985.2. The assessee, a private limited company, is engaged in carrying out repairs of the transformers, belonging to the U.P. State Electricity Board under an agreement. For repairing the transformers the assessee used the spare parts, which are taken to have been sold to the Electricity Board. After repair of the transformers, the bills are submitted by the assessee to the Electricity Board. Thereafter, the Electricity Board makes a thorough inspection of the repaired transformers and only after having been satisfied, the bills, earlier submitted by the assessee, are approved. In the past, the assessment has been made on the assessee in respect of the sale of the spare parts in the year when the transformers are approved after inspection. The department has sought to make a departure from the past practice during this year, inasmuch as,, the tax is sou...
Behari Lal Ram Kishun Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC356(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1982-83 against the Tribunal's order dated 19th February, 1986 upholding a penalty of Rs. 6,275 imposed by the assessing officer under Section 15-A(1)(o) read with Section 28-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee imported certain goods through truck No. MTS 6980 from outside the State on 4th April, 1982. The truck was intercepted at Chaukhata check post, Allahabad. The goods were seized as they were imported without the documents as prescribed in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 83 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. Only a trip sheet and the way bills were shown at the check post.2. The assessing officer then caused a notice dated 6th May, 1982 (page 20 of the paper book) to be served on the assessee as to why the penalty should not be levied, as the goods were imported from Madhya Pradesh without declaration in form XXXI. The assessee explained that the transporter left with the goods without waiting for the declaration form ...
Swadeshi Polytex Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC340
ORDER1. Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Swadeshi Polytex Limited, has challenged the order of the Assistant Collector dated 17-7-1985 on the ground that the said order is erroneous inasmuch as the excise duty @ 45 per kg. has been demanded on waste. The petitioner has paid at the rate of Rs. 9 per kg. The petitioner admittedly has filed an appeal against that order under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. Since the appeal has already been filed, and the question involved in this writ petition, which for its adjudication, the appeal forum would be more adequate, we decline to interfere.2. The writ petition is dismissed summarily....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »