Allahabad Court October 1988 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.
Shree Ram Washer Rahat Industries Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR436(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The only question for consideration in this petition is, whether a reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable against the order passed under Section 254(2) of the said Act. This question came up for consideration before this court in Chemicals and Allied Products v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : [1989]175ITR344(All) (supra) and the Bench, of which one of us was a member, took the view that a reference against the order passed under Section 254(2) of the said Act is maintainable.3. Following the aforesaid decision, we quash the order dated 26th August, 1987 (annexure-7 to the writ petition), passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.4. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the application of the petitioner made under Section 256(1) and decide the same on merits according to law....
Ram Kalap Vs. Iv Additional Dist. Judge, Gorakhpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All157
ORDERR.S. Dhavan, J. 1. While the matter relating to the continuance of the ad interim order dt. 27 Nov., 1987 is under consideration, the petitioner, plaintiff before the Munsif, Bansgaon, in Suit No. 188 of 1987 Ram Kalap Verses Surender, has moved an application that he does not press his petition while accepting that the respondent 2, the defendant, may continue in possession over the property in dispute but be restrained from making any fresh constructions.2. It is contended on behalf of this respondent that while the petitioner will be free not to press the petition there should not be any order from the Court that he may be restrained from making any constructions. It is correct that should the petition be not pressed it will remain pending awaiting decision on issues raised between the parties. Let the issues be examined These are; that while the suit had been instituted and an interim injunctaion was sought from the trial Court to the effect that the defendant-respondent be re...
Hamid Ullah Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ469
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. These two petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. arise out of the following facts:On 20-8-1988 some contraband charas was recovered from the possession of Hamid Ullah, Vahid and Halim by one Sri H. P. Singh,' an Excise Inspector of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The three were consequently arrested on the said date. On 21-8-1988 all the three accused were produced before the C.J.M./Link Magistrate Meerut who passed the following order :--'Aaj Dinank 21-8-88 Ko Uprokt apradh Men Muljim Uprokt Ko Thaney Dwara Giraftar Karkey Remand Koy Merey Samaksh Pesh Kiya Gaya. I.R. Ki Remand Prarthna Patra Key Auolokan Dwara Giyat Hua Ke Vivechana Abhi Shesh Hai.The C.D. has not been produced. The Excise Inspector has submitted that G.D. & C.D. are not maintained by the Excise Officers as only State complaint is preferred. The case property is in duly sealed condition. The wrapper has a label (D-19A) with the signature of the accused. The Excise Inspector has submitted that the sei...
Pati Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ447
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Sri Ramji Lal, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etah on 8-5-1978 in Sessions Trial No. 833 of 1976. All the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 364, 307/149, 302/ 149 and 201/149, I.P.C. Under Section 148, I.P.C. each one of them was awarded 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 201/149, I.P.C. each one of them was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 364, I.P.C. and under Section 302/149, I.P.C. each one of them was awarded imprisonment for life and to each one of them seven years rigorous imprisonment was awarded under Section 307/ 149, I.P.C. All the sentences were made concurrent.2. During the pendency of the present appeal Pati Ram appellant, resident of Dulhapur, Police Station Ooncha. District Mainpuri, was killed in an encounter on 31-1-81 and by the order dated 19-9-1988 his appeal abated. It now proceeds on behalf of the remaining four persons. ...
Shyama Charan Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ456
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. The short question involved in the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is as to whether on the facts of the present case the accused possesses a right to get further investigations ordered through the Magistrate's Court in supposed exercise of powers under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C.2. The brief facts are that on 28th of March, 1988, a first information report had been lodged under Section 396 IPC at 8.20 a.m. by one Sudhir Kant Dwivedi, the gist of the allegations is that an armed dacoity was committed in which Babu Ram and Munni Devi were brutally assaulted as a result of which they died. The accused took away the ornaments and other documents etc. which were kept in the boxes. The informant and many other witnesses saw the accused out of whom the applicant Shyam Charan Dubey alias Aspatali r/o village Jeepure, P. S. Gohan, district Jalaun was named as an accused along with four others.3. The admitted case between the parties is that during investigation,...
Nathu Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ452
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. I have heard Sri Avinash Hajela, learned counsel for the applicants in support of this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Sri Surendra Singh, learned Asstt. Government Advocate appeared for the State. Both the counsel are agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally since the points taken and argued are apparent from the certified copies appended along with the affidavit filed in support of this application. The applicants Nathu Ram, Subedar, Raj Kurnar and Panch Prayag were convicted under Sections 323/34 and 324/34, I.P.C. and awarded three months' rigorous imprisonment on the two different counts each. A sum of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/-each under the respective sections was to be paid as fine in default they were to undergo two months' S.I. The four applicants preferred a criminal appeal which was admitted by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad and numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1987.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the present application it ...
Kailash Nath Bhargava Vs. Vikram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ479
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1. The present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed against the opposite parties for punishing them for the disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The facts of this case are startling which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court.2. The petitioner is the owner of the building known as Ayodhya Bhawan in Mohalla Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur City. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 were the tenants and the office of the L.I.U. was situated in the said building. The petitioner filed a suit against the opposite parties for ejectment from the said property in the Court of the Judges Small Causes which was decided by the Judge Small Causes Court. The opposite parties preferred a revision in this Court which was dismissed on 25-2-1983. They feeling dissatisfied against the said order filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India which too was summarily dismissed. Consequently the decree, which had be...
Sharda Prasad and ors. Vs. Khaderan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All41
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. Defendants revisionists are assailing the order of the court below on the ground that the order passed by it was incomplete and improper.2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs opposite parties questioning the maintainability of the revision. It is contended that the order is appealable and no revision lies. This objection is without any merit. Under the Arbitration Act, an appeal is provided under Section 39 thereof amongst others against an order passed under Section 20 making or refusing to make a reference. In a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Bombay 1978 All LJ 1178 it was observed that before making an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the Court must necessarily find out if the arbitrators have been named in the agreement and if not it will have to ask the parties to nominate the arbitrator in accordance with the agreement and it is only after this ha...
Girdhari Lal Agarwal Vs. Kamleshwar Prasad Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All210
B.L. Yadav, J.1. These first appeals from orders under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) directed againstthe order dated 31-8-82 passed by Civil Judge, Allahabad in Suit No. 102 of 1981 dismissing the objections of the defendant-appellant for setting aside the award dated 26-5-1981 (paper No. 14A) (paper book No. 1 pages 30 to 39) and making the award rule of the Court and directing a decree to follow.2. A portrayal of essential facts is this. There was a registered partnership firm working in the name and style of 'Firm Agarwal Construction Co.' and Girdhari Lal Agarwal, Kamleshwar Prasad Agarwal and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal were its partners. The firm undertook the work of construction bf 50, quarters (11 type) from Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corporation, Phoolpur (for short IFFCO) in the year 1977. That work was in progress but in the meantime some disputes arose between Kamleshwar Prasad Agrawal and remaining partners in adjustment of accounts and share of the pro...
Rajpal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ501
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1978 passed in Sessions Trial No. 372 of 1977 by Mr. Rati Ram Jatav, the then III Additional Sessions Judge of Etah, whereby he has convicted the six appellants mentioned above on a charge under Section 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to imprisonment for life on the second.2. The occurrence in question took place on 6-2-1977 at about sunset in village Jinavali to which the appellant as well as the deceased Gangaram and his brother Ospal (P.W. 1) belonged. The first information report was lodged at 7.45 p.m. the same day at police station Awagarh, Etah, at a distance of three miles from the place of occurrence.Brijlal Mandlal alias| |______________________ Nandram| |Shobharam Narain Chhangulal| | |______________ | __________________________________| | | | | | Gangaram Ospal | Nardayal Hira Sukhbasi(deceased) (P.W.1)| (appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »