Allahabad Court February 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.
Shabbir and anr. Vs. Ashfaq Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All223
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. This F. A. F. O. purports to be under Order 41, Rule l(r), C P. C. For the caveator Sri S.M. Chaturvedi has raised a preliminary objection before admission of this appeal that no appeal against the impugned order lies.2. To appreciate the controversy a few facts may first be taken note of. On dismissal of their suit by the trial Court the respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1980 and obtained an interim order from the appellate court on 1-2-1980 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It appears that the appellants violated this injunction giving rise to an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A(i) C. P. C. This application was allowed on 18-7-1980 and the court ordered proceedings to be drawn up against the appellants for violating the injunction. Aggrieved by the order the appellant filed an appeal (F. A. F. O. No. 406 of 1980) before the High Court which was dismissed on 3-8-1984. After this, 7-10-1986 was fixed in the appeal (No. 23 of 1980) but on accoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agra Beverages Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR374(All)
1. We have heard learned standing counsel for the applicant only as none appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite notice having been served on the secretary of the opposite party.2. After having heard the learned standing counsel, we are of the view that question No. 2 as stated in, paragraph No. 9 of the application is a question of law and that it does arise from the Tribunal's order (annexure 3 to the reference application).3. We, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case on the following question and refer the same to this court for its opinion :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the bottles and crates in the assessee's case do not constitute its stock-in-trade and should be treated as 'plant' ?'4. The application is partly allowed, without any order as to costs....
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shri Surendra Sawhney
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR188(All)
1. We have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned standing counsel only, as none appears on behalf of the opposite party for whom an affidavit of service has been filed. 2. After hearing learned standing counsel, we are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the question as stated in paragraph No. 6 of the application is a question of law and that it does arise from the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to record the statement of the case on the following question and refer the same to this court for opinion : 'Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in its finding that Rule 1 BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, has retrospective operation and is applicable even in respect of the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1979-80?' 3. The application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bansal Tel Bhandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(All)207; [1988]172ITR334(All); [1988]37TAXMAN148(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, has referred the following question for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case., the Tribunal was correct in holding that there could not be said to be any change in the constitution of the firm in this case and, as such, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in granting the assessee the benefit of registration for the assessment year 1970-71 and continuation of the same for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The facts are that the partnership styled as M/s. Bansal Tel Bhandar, Bareilly, was constituted under a partnership deed dated December 20, 1968, by three partners, namely, Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Shanti Devi and Raja Ram, whose shares were described as 40%, 40% and 20%, respectively, in the said deed. The accounting year of the firm ended on Diwali day, 1969, i.e., October 18, 1969. For ...
Mewaram Vs. State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1215
A.N. Dikshita, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Mewa Ram against the judgment and order dated 26-3-1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, convicting him under Section 411,I.P.C.and sentencing him to two years' R.I.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows: On 15-6-1978 Munney Khan,.driver of truck No. USW 1030 was transporting sugarcane from Banthara Gana Centre to Roza Sugar Factory. When he reached on the pucca road he noticed a tanker standing there. He also noticed four miscreants standing near the tanker two of whom were having single barrel guns. After looting the tanker they rushed towards truck No. USW 1030, stopped it and relieved the cleaner of the truck of Rs. 6/- and an Angocha. Immediately thereafter another truck No. USP 6969 also arrived there and its driver Brij Lal and two occupants Akhil Kumar and Vinod Kumar were also looted by the said four miscreants. After the departure of the miscreants the driver of the tanker No. USE 5950 Mohd....
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Triveni Lal Kusharwani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC169
N.N. Mithal, J.1. A young man of 22 years of age was knocked down to from his scooter and crushed to death by a Bus belonging to the appellant. A claim for compensation of Rs. 1,75,300/- was made against which the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 38,009/-. Aggrieved by the decision the Corporation has come up in appeal.2. Sri S.K. Sharma, appearing for the appellant, contended that the findings of the claims Tribunal fixing the responsibility on the appellant was not based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the amount of compensation awarded was also excessive.3. According to the case of the claimant, the deceased was coming on a Scooter on the Yamuna bridge from Naini side to Allahabad at about 6.45 in the morning. The Bus hit him from behind as result of which he fell down and was entangled in the bumper of the Bus and was crushed to death. The case of the appellant was that the Bus was going at a moderate speed but the deceased tried to over take the Bus from left s...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dinesh Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(All)211; [1988]173ITR520(All); [1988]37TAXMAN132(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 for our opinion: ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of his inasmuch as in Prakash Enterprise and Jagat Narain Chand Prakash (sic) 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, the firm, Prakash Enterprise, could still be treated as an industrial undertaking even though it was engaged in printing on cotton cloth on job basis and not on its own ' 2. The assessee, an individual, is a partner in two firms, Prakash Enterprise and Jagat Narain Chand Prakash. Both the firms were engaged in the business of dyeing and printing of cotton cloth and making sarees therefrom. For both the assessment years, the assessee claimed exemption under Section ...
Shri Khursheed Ahmad Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: [1990]76STC256(All)
R.K. Gulati, J1. These two connected revisions have been filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Khursheed Ahmad. The assessment years in dispute are 1973-74 and 1974-75. A common question has been raised for decision in both these cases. These cases can be dealt with conveniently by a common judgment.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these revisions are : that Shri Khursheed Ahmad was engaged in the sale of watches ; he did not file his returns of turnover for the years in dispute. The residential premises of Shri Khursheed Ahmad (for short 'the assessee') were searched on 2nd August, 1975, by Customs Officials and a number of watches of foreign make along with some incriminating documents were seized. These papers related to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The information of raid seems to have been received at the Sales Tax Office and copy of seizure, photo copy of the seized documents of the raid were...
Gaura Devi Vs. Sardar Kundan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: I(1988)ACC429
K.K. Birla, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Gaura Devi against the order dated 21-9-70 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh dismissing her claim.2. Briefly state, on 12-2-71 Sri Umesh Chandra was coming from Aligarh to Sikandra Rao upon his Motor cycle No. U.S.N. 5195. Sri Jag-dish Prasad (PW 2) was riding on the pillion. At about 8.45 A.M. he reached at a distance of about 5 Km. from Sikandra Rao. A truck No. M.P.G. 9815 was coming from the direction of Sikandra Rao. There was head-on collision in which Sri Umesh Chandra died on the spot. His mother Smt. Gaura Devi had preferred the claim petition before the Motor Claims Tribunal, Aligarh. The deceased was about 21 years of age. He was a partner in the firm carrying on the Sugar manufacturing work. The truck was being driven by Sardar Keshav Singh (O. P. No. 2) and was owned by Sardar Kundan Singh (O.P. No. 1). The truck was insured in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. According to the petitione...
Nand Kishore Agarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR566(All); [1988]40TAXMAN227(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated May 11, 1987.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly raised the question that no estate duty is payable after the enforcement of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 52 of 1985). It has been urged that proceedings in respect of the finalisation of the estate duty were pending on the date of enforcement of the Act and thus the provisions of new Section 5(c) should have been applied to the case of the petitioners also.3. We have heard standing counsel of the Department also and we are of the opinion that the question raised has no substance. The newly inserted Section 5(c) only provides that the provisions of the Estate Duty Act shall cease to apply to the levy of estate duty in respect of any property (other than agricultural land) which passes on the death of any person on or after March 16, 1985. There is no dispute that the petitioners' father died mu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›