Allahabad Court April 1988 Judgments
Ram Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All309
B.L. Yadav, J.1. Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer Collector, Allahabad has exercised his power for acquisition of land and for issuance of notification dated 9-12-87, published in the newspaper dated 20-12-87 (Annexure 2 to the petition). Under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the Act), dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act in good faith and if not, whether such notification was a colourable exercise of power or fraud on executive power and exercise of such power was vitiated, and whether the right of summary hearing under Section 5A of the Act could be dispensed with under the circumstances of the case, are the short questions of law for our consideration in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a relief for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 9-12-87/20-12-87 (Annexure 2) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) the Act.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR204(All)
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the action of the respondent in arresting the petitioner for realisation of the alleged income-tax-dues. 2. On March 22, 1988, after hearing the parties under Rule 76 of the rules framed under the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Department, Gorakhpur, took a decision that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the payment of income-tax dues and was thus liable to be sent to civil imprisonment. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 86 of the Rules. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid appeal has not been disposed of uptil now. 4. At the admission stage, we have heard Sri R. K. Agarwal, learned standing counsel, appearing for the Department, and the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is already pursuing his remedy when he has al...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Khalid Vs. Smt. Zeenat Parveen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All252
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J. 1. The appellant was married to one Yasmin in 1980 but the marriage did not bear fruit as no child was born to them until 1984. On 13th Jan. 1984 the appellantmarried a second time whereafter he and his wife Zeenat Parveen lived together for some time. On 10-11-1984 a son was born. According to Zeenat Parveen she was the mother and had given birth to the son while the appellant claimed that Yasmin,, his first wife, was the mother of the child. On an application being moved under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act the court below has answered this question of motherhood in favour of Zeenat Parveen to whom the custody of the minor has also been entrusted. Aggrieved by the order, the husband filed the present appeal. 2. Two main questions arise for consideration. The first question is whether the child was born out of the womb of first or the second wife of appellant. The second question is as to where the welfare of the minor lies in the facts and circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All318
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suit No. 274 of 1971 was filed in the court of Munsif, Etah, for eviction of Roshan Lal petitioner. The suit was filed by plaintiff-respondents 1, 2 and 3 on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of Smt. Champa Devi and after her death the petitioner became the tenant of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It was further alleged that the petitioner had committed default in payment of the rent and as such he was liable to be evicted After coming into force of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act No. 37 of 1972, this original suit was transferred to the court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Etah.2. The Judge, Small Clauses Court heard the said suit and came to me conclusion that the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act were not applicable to the instant suit and since the question of title was involved, the plaint was returned to be decided as a regular suit. Title in...
Tag this Judgment!Prestige Cops Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(19)LC372(Allahabad)
1. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of the Assistant Collector dated 1st March, 1988 partly allowing the application of the petitioner for refund of certain excise duty which had been paid except in respect of 'plastic sleeves'.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise New Delhi clearly granted relief to the petitioner in respect of 'Plastic sleeves' also and the Assistant Collector has wrongly held that the original order of the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise does not contain the aforesaid words 'Plastic sleeves'.3. Under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act an appeal lies within three months against the order which has been passed by the Assistant Collector on 1st March, 1988. Petitioner along with a certified copy of our order may file an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who will try to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of the filing of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Devi and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All262
ORDERA.P. Mishra, J. 1. At the admission stage the respondent was served and he put in appearance and counter and rejoinder affidavit were exchanged. Therefore, this revision is disposed of finally at 'the admission stage itself. 2. The present revision is directed as against an order dated 22-7-1987 passed by the trial Court by virtue of which the applicants' suit was abated and an application for setting aside abatement was rejected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. In the present case the applicants urged they are purdanashin ladies and not literate and that they were ignorant of the fact that an application for substitution has to be made within certain stipulated time. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff landlord Kedar Nath died and thereafter an application for substitution was made in the Court below. It is stated that in spite of the fact of the death of the landlord Kedar Nath on 26th May, 1986, it was only on the 29th Octob...
Tag this Judgment!Swastik Rubber Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC52(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 31st March, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73.2. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, by the same consolidated impugned order dated 31st March, 1987 and has upheld the taxability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee has filed Revision No. 527, which related to the assessment year 1971-72 and the present revision with regard to the assessment year 1972-73. Subsequently, Revision No. 527 was got dismissed by the assessee as not pressed. Therefore, I am left with the present revision filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 alone.3. During the said assessment year the assessee engaged itself in the business of footwear. During both the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the assessee had admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Purnendu Shekhar Rai Vs. University of Kanpur, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All220
Om Prakash, J. 1. The petitioner took up admission in B.Sc.(Ag) Part I on 14-9- 1984 in the Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College in Allahabad, affiliated to the University of Kanpur and appeared in B.Sc.(Ag) Part I Examination with Roll No. 280 from the said college itself, which was a centre of examination. No degree of B.Sc.(Ag) could be awarded to any student unless he passed in General English Paper and, therefore, the petitioner appeared in the said paper when he took up the examination of B.Sc(Ag) Part I. Sri K. C. Srivastava Principal of the aforesaid college was Centre Superintendent and there were several Invigilators, including Sri Kamal Srivastava in the room, where the seat was allotted to the petitioner. It is admitted that the marks awarded in General English Paper do not affect the merit of the students, but it is necessary to pass the said paper, because no degree could be awarded without having passed that paper. The scheme of the University is that if one fails in General...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.B. Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All225
ORDERA.P. Misra, J. 1. The applicant in this revision has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1983 passed in execution proceedings by virtue of which the transfer application' for the transfer of the decree to another court filed by the respondent was allowed and objection under Section 47, C.P.C. of the applicant was rejected.2. The execution proceeding was in pursuance to the decree dated 25th September, 1980, passed by the court which made the award dated 1st December, 1971, rule of the court.3. The Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) auctioned certain quantities of iron girders at Mathura, which was taken on contract by Messrs S.B. Singh & Sons (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). This firm entered into a contract with the applicant on 21st August, 1970, for the purchase of released bridge iron girders. The said agreement was for the sale of 1225 tonnes of dismantled wrought iron girders at the rate of Rs. 451.62 p. perton, totalling for Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Sahu Vs. Subhash Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All246
ORDERA.P. Mishra, J.1. Heard counsel for the applicant. The present revision is directed as against the order dated 28-11-87 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge Jhansi by virtue of which he rejected the application of the present applicant for leave to serve interrogatories on the plaintiff-opposite party.2. Preliminary objection has been raised in this case that this is not a 'case decided' and the court should not interfere in the present proceeding as the applicant would have right to object finally at the time when final order is passed in the said suit. This point is covered by a decision of this Court reported in Maheshwari Oil Mill v. M/s. Girjanath Durga Saran, AIR 1980 AH 265 wherein it has been held that 'when the court exercises its judicial discretion in granting or refusing to grant leave to deliver interrogatories, it cannot be said to be an adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. 'The order does not amount to case dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »