Allahabad Court December 1988 Judgments
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All109
S.C. Mathur, J.1. Doubting correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prem Jeet Singh v. Excise Commissioner, 1983 UPTC 783, another Division Bench before which the instant petition came up for orders directed the petition to be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding this case. The doubt was expressed on the basis of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan, AIR 1972 SC 1816. The doubt stands confirmed as the judgment of this Court in Prem Jeet Singh's case has been set aside in appeal by their Lordships whose judgment is reported in AIR 1983 SC 1056 : (1984) 1 SCC 270, Excise Commissioner v. Prem Jeet Singh. Since the entire petition has been referred to this Bench and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised certain points which require decision, a few facts, about which there is no dispute between the parties, may be stated.2. The dispute in the petition pertains ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandania Vs. Gyan Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All75
ORDERAmarendra Nath Varma, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of house No. 1206 Mohalla Devipura, Bulandshahr and entitled to realize rent in respect thereof from the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 who are residing in the house in suit as tenants thereof. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit was decreed. Hence this second appeal.2. The plaint case was that the plaintiff's husband Munshi Nathan Singh was the owner of the house in suit and other movable and immovable properties. He executed a will bequeathing all his immovable properties including the house in suit in favour of theplaintiff who was his nephew and his movable assets in favour of his wife Smt. Chandania, the defendant No. 1. On the death of Nathan Singh, the plaintiff became the owner of the house entitled to realize rent from the tenants, viz., defendants Nos. 2 to 6. Nathan Singh a...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Prasad Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR298(All)
1. Upon hearing the parties, we are of the view that questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are questions of law but question No. 3 requires to be reframed. We, therefore, reframe question No. 3 and direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly interpreted the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction of the liability under Balrampur Tenantry War Loan ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and especially in the absence of any additional evidence produced by theDepartment, the Tribunal's reversal of the findings of the Settlement, Commission for earlier years in respect of ground No. 1 is sustainable inlaw ?' ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangesh Sharma and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ861
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. applicants Rangesh Shrama, Assistant Engineer, Meters Vidyut Parikshan Sakha Etah and Mahendra Deo Sharma, Executive Engineer, Vidyut Parikshan Khan, Mainpuri have prayed for quashing the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah dt. 6-6-85 (Annexure-3) in Criminal Case No. 1904 of 1984 and the order dt. 5-3-86 (Annexure-4) passed by learned V Addl. District Judge, Etah. The appellants have also prayed for quashing the complaint Annexure 15-2-80 filed by Opposite Party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Sharma filed under Sections 466/467/420/218/427, I.P.C.2. Facts as they are revealed are that opposite party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Sharma was working as Junior Meter Tester in the office of the Electricity Test Division, Etah, Applicant No. 1 Rangesh Sharma was posted there as Assistant Engineer (Meters) in the said division while applicant No. 2 Mahendra Deo Sharma was the Executive Engineer Electricity Test Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Phirari Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ884
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying for quashing the impugned orders dated 21-12-1982 and 12-7-1983 passed by X Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gorakhpur and VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, respectively and also for dismissing the application filed by the Opp. Party 2 under Section 125, Cr. P.C.2. The facts in a narrow compass are that there is a long standing enmity between the applicant on the one side and the father and uncle of the opp. party 2 Smt. Ramawati Devi (daughter of Ram Samujh) on the other so much so that criminal cases and civil suits were filed by either of the parties since the year 1975. Sri Udai Raj Singh, nephew of the applicant was successfully elected Block Pramukh in successive elections since long, though father and uncle of opp. party 2 had supported rival candidate against Udairaj Singh. Panchoo alias Prem Narain, uncle of opp. party 2 was a notorious person and had been dismissed from the U...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Dass Vinod Kumar Vs. Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC276(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. During the assessment year 1979-80 the assessee carried on business in cotton sewing thread. Originally the assessing authority had imposed tax at the rate of 2 per cent for the sales between 1st April, 1979 to 3rd December, 1979 and for sales after 3rd December, 1979 at the rate of 3 per cent. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer, after giving an opportunity to the assessee, passed an order under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and levied tax on the aforesaid items as unclassified items. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987.2. On a consideration of the rival submission, the Tribunal has taken the view that though originally in the Notification No. ST-II-6628/ X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973 sewing, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Boiron Laboratories Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC7; 1992(61)ELT601(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. M/s Dabur India Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as M/s. Dabur) having factory premises at Sahibabad and M/s. Sharda Boiron Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Sharda) also situated at Sahibabad, have challenged in these writ petitions the show cause notice dated 2-11-1988 jointly given to them by the District Excise Officer, Ghaziabad (Annexure 14 to the writ petition of M/s. Dabur). Anr. writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1160 of 1988 has been filed by M/s. Sharda for quashing the order of the Central Government dated 3-6-1988 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition). As all these writ petitions can be conveniently decided together, they are consolidated and are disposed of by a combined order.2. The facts as succinctly stated are that M/s. Dabur, a public limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Allopathic and Ayurvedic medicines and toilet preparations. It is contended that in some medicines, alcohol is used and fo...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and ors. Vs. Dr. N.V. Rajgopalan Achary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All125
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal filed against the judgment of the III Additional Civil Judge, Agra, dt. Sept., 16, 1988, restraining the defendant Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Parishad') from realising unpaid instalments claimed from the plaintiff-respondents towards the hire purchase agreements under which the ownership of the flats constructed by the Parishad had been agreed to be transferred.2. The plaintiff-respondents filed Civil Suit No. 464 of 1988 Dr. N. Rajgopalan v. Uttar Pradesh Ayas Evam Vikas Parishad for the following reliefs :(A) That it be declared that the defendants are not entitled to charge any amount of price or value/instalment/hire or interest or any other amount of each flat exceeding Rs. 55,000/- and they are liable to refund the amount received in excee thereto. (B) Consequently the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from recovering, demanding or charging any amount towards the...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ858
ORDERG.B. Singh, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 25 Anns Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 27-2-4979 at about 5.30 p.m. in village Gouhania, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Faizabad. S.I. Ram Narain Shukla (P.W. 1) apprehended Mahadeo revisionist and recovered one country made pistol and two live cartridges without any licence from his possession. A Fard about the recovery was prepared and First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Mahrajganj on the same day at 7-50 p.m. After investigation sanction for prosecution was obtained from the District Magistrate, Faizabad. The revisionist was thereafter prosecuted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act. On behalf of the prosecution two witnesses S.I. Ram Narain Shukla (P.W. 1) and Constable Ram Komal Yadav (P.W. 2) were examined as eye witnesses of the recovery. S.O. Kripa Shanker Sachan (P.W. 3) investigated the case and obtained s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Prakash Agrawal (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR284(All)
1. Upon hearing the parties, we are of the view that the following question raised by the Revenue is a question of law and that does arise from the Tribunal's order dated May 6, 1987 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer should be treated as merged in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion, 2. The application is allowed. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »