Allahabad Court July 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Phoolson Trading Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC236(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision by the Revenue against the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut, dated 30th May, 1986.2. Admittedly, the assessee, a registered dealer, sold the goods, liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer, to the purchasing dealer, a Haldwani firm, and claimed exemption on the basis of the form 3-A, which was obtained from the purchasing dealer. The Sales Tax Officer took the view that the form 3-A issued to the purchasing dealer, i.e., Haldwani firm, was given by that firm to a Ghaziabad firm and that the Haldwani firm is fictitious and a bogus firm and the registration thereof has been cancelled. For these reasons, the exemption on the basis of form 3-A was not allowed to the assessee, i.e., selling dealer. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention of the selling dealer and allowed exemption. Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up in revision. The question for consideration is whether for the above reasons, the exemption can be refused t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. Satish Chandra Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC330
N.N. Mithal, J.1. On the dismissal of the workmans, petition for compensation moved before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Bulandshahr the present F.A.F.O. has been filed.2. The admitted facts are: that the appellant was employed as a Chaukidar at a petrol pump belonging to the respondent on 21-3-76 on a salary of Rs. 150/- p.m. It is alleged that a dacoity was committed at the petrol pump during day time while the appellant was on duty and in the scuffle which ensued between the dacoits and the appellant to prevent the dacoity he sustained incised wound in the left forearm of his hand. Admittedly, he was taken to the hospital by his employer. Injury report is on the record which also clearly shows that he was brought before the doctor by his employer. The doctor was examined and he has stated that two small fingers of his left hand have become immobule and the entire hand has not been rendered useless. He has, therefore, opined that the loss of capacity was only 50% on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Music Time Electro Cottage Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and Additional ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)LC40(Allahabad)
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length but we are not inclined to admit the petition to any further hearing. We feel that the petitioner should first show cause before theauthority concerned in which it shall be open to him to take, by way of preliminary objection, the objection that the petitioner is seeking to in this court above the competence of the Additional CollectorCentral Excise, Allahabad to proceed in the matter. If such an objection is taken and canvassed before the Additional Collection, we have no doubt that the learned Additional Collector will take a decision on this aspect of the matter in the first. With this observation, we dispose of the writ petition finally today.2. A copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of necessary charges within 24 hours to enable him to produce it before the authority concerned....
Tag this Judgment!Pyarelal Hari Dass Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC183(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This sales tax revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act' (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') is directed against an order dated 29th January, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench.2. The only question raised in this revision is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case of the applicant to the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment ?3. The assessee runs a brick kiln. For the assessment year 1982-83, its account books were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and it was assessed to tax on an estimated turnover of Rs. 1,78,120 against the disclosed turnover of Rs. 55,400. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Judicial), accepted the book version of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took the matter further in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. On consideration of the assessment order and that of the first appellate authority the Sales Tax Tribunal came to th...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Viryam Kaur and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC217
D.S. Sinha, J.1. This appeal, Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Sardar Singh, is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1978, passed by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, in Motor Accident Claim No. 428 of 1973, preferred by the respondent Under Section 110-A of the Act.2. The claim of the respondents arose out of an accident wherein one Harjendra Singh died on the spot as a result of collision of his scooter No. D.L.S. 4951 with U.P. Government Roadways bus No. U.T.D. 321 driven by Sardar Singh. The fatal accident took place at about '6.00 p.m. on 1-7-1973 in Modinagar town when the deceased was going from Meerut to Delhi. It was alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor-bus. The age of the deceased was alleged to be 32 years and his monthly income was pleaded to be Rs. 5000/- per month. The decease...
Tag this Judgment!Sami Ullah and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All185
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J. 1. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th June 1980 passed by Board of Revenue, the respondent No. 1 in second Appeal No. 221 of 1973-74 (Raghunath v. Samiullah and others) allowing the appeal filed by the defendant, the respondents 2 and 3 and dismissing the suit filed by the present petitioners under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 (for short the Act) for the ejectment of the defendants the respondents 2 and 3from an area of 1 bigha and 8 biswa of plot No. 548 situate in village Kanihar, Pargana Jhunsi, Distt. Allahabad,2. This case has a chequered history. Present petitioners had filed a civil suit numbered 16 of 1954 for declaration that the land in dispute was ancestral grove of the plaintiffs and they were the grove holders or bhumidhars of plot No. 548 and the defendant Raghunath, father of respondents 2 and 3 has no concern with it. He was appointed to look after the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)87; [1988]170ITR473(All); [1987]34TAXMAN160(All)
R.R. Misra, J. 1. These four applications filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raise common questions which are stated to be questions of law said to be arising out of a consolidated order dated March 24, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. 2. The assessee had adopted the calendar year as its previous year. Up to December 31, 1966, the assessee was having share income from the firm, Daily Jagran, in the status of a Hindu undivided family and till the assessment year 1977-78, the said share income was assessed in that status. On December 31, 1976, there was a partial partition in the family of the assessee. According to the terms of the said partial partition, share capital in the firm, Daily Jagran, of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee was partitioned between the assessee, his wife and his two...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhupati NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC535; [1989]66CompCas892(All)
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Varanasi, under Section 110 of the Motor VehiclesAct at the instance of New India Assurance Co. with whom the truck involved in the accident was insured.2. In brief, the facts are that on June 2, 1973, at about 2 p.m. mini bus No. USM 3377 met with an accident with truck No. UTV 2995. The mini bus was severely damaged in the said accident and the owner preferred a claim under Section 110 of the said Act claiming a sum of Rs. 48,000 by way of compensation for the damage caused to the property.3. The claim petition was contested and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 38,000 against the appellant on the basis of the offer made by the assurance company itself to pay a sum of Rs. 38,000 to the claimant.4. Aggrieved by the award, the insurance company has come up in appeal. The only point urged by Sri A. K. Saxena, appearing for the company, was that the liability of the insurance company would not e...
Tag this Judgment!Udai NaraIn Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All30
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition undo' Art 226 of the Constitution has been filed for a Mandamus directing the Election Commissioner of India to exclude votes of the Members of Parliament elected from U.P. and also of the Members of the Legislative Assembly of that State cast at the Presidential Election which took place on the 13th July, 1987. The grounds for claiming the relief mentioned above are these :(a) Current Government of U. P. is lawless fiat and has no right to exercise the right of franchise in Presidential Election, (b) Current Members of Parliament have no constitutional sanction to cast vote in Presidential Election. The grounds taken for the relief claimed are incoherent, unintelligible and confused.2. The petitioner urged that as the elections of Members of Parliament in the State of U. P. as well as of those who were elected for the U. P. State Assembly were illegal, they do not have a right to cast vote at the Presidential Election. The petitioner was unable to sat...
Tag this Judgment!Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All21
Om Prakash, J. 1. The allotment of the three plots : D-1, D-2 and D-3 situate in Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, for which the petitioner No. 1, which was then a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') applied, having been refused by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and their allotment having been made in favour of the respondent No. 2 instead, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying: (i) that the allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the respondent No. 2 be quashed; (ii) that the respondent No. 1 be restrained from delivering possession of the, aforesaid plots to the respondent No. 2 and (iii) that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent No. 1 directing it to allot the plots in question to the petitioner.2. The petitioner while applying for the allotment of the aforesaid plots, claimed the status of partnership, but later, it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner carr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »