Allahabad Court October 1988 Judgments
Suryabali and ors. Vs. the Vi Additional Dist. Judge, Deoria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All179
B.L. Yadav, J.1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the impugned order dated 21-4-88 passed by the Additional District Judge, rejecting the Civil Revision of the petitioner, and the orders dated 24-2-87 and 9-3-87 are sought to be quashed.2. It appears that an application was filed on 17-9-81 (Annexure 1 to the petition) that the defendant may be given time to file objection on the report of the Commissioner. That application was dismissed by order dated 24-2-87 (Annexure 3) and the parties were directed to produce evidence forthwith. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 24-2-87 and that application was rejected by order dated 9-3-87. Against these orders the present petition has been filed.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The operative portion of the order' dated 24-2-87 is set out below :'The application 183D is rejected for the above reason. The parties to produce evidence forthwith. The defendants are not add...
Tag this Judgment!Mitter SaIn Industries Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC363(Allahabad)
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Union of India.2. The total amount which the assessee has to deposit, is Rs. 5 Lakhs. The assessee has already offered that he will not press for the refund of Rs. 2,43,429.08 which he is entitled for the earlier years.3. In the interest, we consequently, direct that the balance amount of Rs. 2,56,570.20 paisa shall be deposited by the assessee within two month's time from today in pursuance of the order dated 30th August, 1988 passed by the Tribunal.4. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.5. A copy of this order may be given to learned Counsel for the parties within three days on payment of usual charges....
Tag this Judgment!Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ409
Palok Basu, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict in the two decisions, one in writ petition No. 9475 of 1986 Kripa Shankar v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and others, and the other in Awadhesh Kumar Misra v. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, 1988 All WC 42 : (1988 All LJ 363). It appears that when this writ petition was filed before Hon. V. K. Mehrotra and Hon. Ravi S. Dhavan, JJ. the decision of Hon. K. C. Aggarwal and Hon. M. P. Singh, JJ. in Kripa Sharikar's case (supra) was cited for the petitioner while the Standing Counsel relied upon Awadhesh's case (supra). Noticing a conflict in those decisions, a reference for constituting a larger Bench was made.2. Balram Singh has filed this petition against the order dated 11-4-1988 passed by the A.D.M. (F.), Banda, thereby suspending the petitioner's licence for possessing a revolver and a rifle issued under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending proceedings for re...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. the Additional District Judge, Nainital and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All176
ORDERS.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Suit No. 48 of 1979 was filed by Khurshad Ali against Mohan Lal and Anil Kumar in the Court of Judge Small Causes for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. The property in dispute was a shop situate in Darau Road, Kichha, district Nainital.2. The suit was decreed ex parte by an order dated 9th May, 1980. The operative portion of the decree is as follows : --'Plaintiffs suit for ejectment of defendants from shop in suit; for recovery of Rs. 147.50 as arrears of rent and for recovery of pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 75/-p.m. is decreed with costs ex parte,'3. On May 15, 1980, only five days after the suit was decreed ex parte, the tenants Mohan Lal and Anil Kumar, who are petitioners in this Court filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) for setting aside the ex parte decree. On that very date a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC133(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. All these 17 revisions filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., against the provisional assessment orders for the various months of the years 1985 to 1987 raise a common controversy and are directed against two consolidated orders each dated 2nd April, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to the same assessee.2. During the said years in question the assessee manufactured safety razor blades at Ghaziabad. The dispute between the parties centres round the rate of tax at which the safety razor blades manufactured by the assessee are liable to be taxed. According to the department the said razor blades are to be taxed at the rate of 12 per cent as stainless steel item but according to the assessee since the said blades are not stainless steel items, the same are unclassified items and to be taxed at the rate of 8 per cent.3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax. In the impugned order, the Sales Tax Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Lochan Pandey Vs. Madan Gopal Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All45
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Rajiv Lochan Pandey for quashing the ex parte judgment and decree dated May 27, 1986 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and judgments and order dated March 7, 1987 and April 29, 1988 (Annexures 15 and 22 to the writ petition).2. The petitioner was the tenant of a portion of bungalow No. 16, Clive Road, Allahabad. Pt. Gopi Nath Kunjuri the owner was residing in the remaining portion. The petitioner has been paying rent of the bungalow since 1970. After the death of Pt. Gopinath Kunjuru in 1982, Madan Gopal Sharma, respondent No. 1, forcibly occupied the portion, which was in possession of Pt. Gopinath Kunjuru without any right or authority.3. The petitioner filed suit No. 777 of 1983 against the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the disputed premises otherwise than in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 Madan Gopal Sharma also filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Bharti Nursery School and anr. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ422
S.K. Dhaon, J.1. In these petitions, the two petitioners, namely, Bal Bharti Nursery School and Sri Hastim Raza Ali Bakht (hereinafter referred to as Sri Bakht) are common and one of the respondents, namely, the District Magistrate, Allahabad, is common and according to the petitioners the controversies in these petitions are interlinked. Therefore, these petitions were heard together and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, on 18th April, 1988 directed the Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad, to stop the operation of the accounts of the Bal Bharti School and Sri Bakht and not to permit the withdrawal of any amount from these accounts without his prior permission (District Magistrate's). This order is being impugned in Writ Petition No. 7812 of 1988.3. In Writ Petition No. 17724 of 1988 the allegation is that the District Magistrate directed closure of the Bal Bharti School, was intending to take over the Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Digamber Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ489
V.P. Mathur, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order passed by Mr. N. B. Asthana, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr on 19-6-1978 in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 1976 and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Mr. N. B. Asthana, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge Judge found Digamber Singh and Prempal Singh both guilty on a charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted them accordingly and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved, the two appellants now come up to this Court.3. It appears that the learned Judge was disposing of two Sessions Cases Nos. 271 of 1976 and 92 of 1976. In the first case, seven persons stood their trial and in the Second case Kunwarpal and one other person Gurveer Singh were facing the trial but, it appears that Gurveer Singh absconded during the course of the trial and, therefore, his trial was separated and has been numbered as Session...
Tag this Judgment!Gore Lal Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All39
ORDERR.S. Dhavan, J.1. This writ petition has been pending in this Court for 14 years. Part of the fault lies on our registry and part on counsel who had appeared for the petitioner, now dead.2. This court will take the first aspect.3. The Court has no hesitation in placing on record that the notings made by the registry on the order sheet are not appropriate nor accurate nor in accordance with Rules of the Court and do not reflect credibility.4. The petition was filed on Feb. 15, 1974 and admitted on that day with an order that notices be issued to the respondents. It remained pending, when on Sept. 19, 1975 an application was filed with a fresh appearanceby another counsel. The application mentioned that the petitioner is dead and in his place the name of his son Ram Kishan be substituted. Today, after thirteen years this application still remains pending consideration. When this application was filed a copy of it was not served on counsel for the respondent Mr. B.R. Tripathi though ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheshwar Ashok Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR179(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Upon hearing of the parties and perusal of the Tribunal's order dated April 30, 1987, we are of the view that the following questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal:'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purchases of Rs. 51,652 made from March 27, 1978, to March 31, 1978, relate to concealed income ? (2) Whether, in view of the fact that to prove the case of the applicant, a request for summons of the seller was made under Section 131 to the Income-tax Officer, and the Income-tax Officer did not issue any summons and inasmuch did not reject the request or communicate anything to the applicant, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the averments made in the affidavit, in the absence of any contrary material or holding otherwise ?' 2. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions for the opinion of this court.3. The application is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »