Allahabad Court May 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.
Margoobul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1467
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 3-2-1988 by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1987 (State v. Akbar and Ors.) pending in his Court under Section 307 I.P.C. whereby he has allowed an application moved by the State purporting to be under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and directed that Margoobul Hassan be summoned as an accused in this case.2. The learned Counsel has placed on the record a certified copy of the statement of Riyazul Hasan, on the basis of which the application was moved on behalf of the State by the A.P.P. to summon Margoobul Hasan under Section 319 Cr.P.C. A certified copy of this application has also been placed on the record.3. The learned Counsel has argued that Margoobul Hasan was an accused in this case in the beginning and the police submitted a final report against him, which was accepted and therefore, he could not now be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC62(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been preferred against the order dated July 31, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, relating to assessment year 1973-74 (U.P. and Central). Since both the revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the instant revisions are that the assessee is a manufacturer of vanaspati ghee and soap, etc., carrying on its business at Ghaziabad. During the assessment year in question the assessee disclosed its taxable sales in U.P. at Rs. 5,10,23,821.27 and in Central at Rs. 20,90,377.85. The account books of the assessee were rejected by the assessing authority and its taxable turnover in U.P. was determined at Rs. 5,72,23,821.77 and in Central at Rs. 53,26,865.06. The assessee feeling aggrieved, filed appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who ...
Janhari Singh, S/O Shri Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(19)LC9(Allahabad)
Om Prakash, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized ornaments weighing 386 grams on the basis of the orders passed by the Deputy Collector on 23rd February, 1985. It has been alleged in the writ petition that even though the appeal has been filed by the Department, no stay order has been passed within the knowledge of the petitioner.2. At the admission stage the respondents filed a counter affidavit and have also produced a copy of the stay order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The aforesaid stay order clearly shows that the Collector (Appeals) has passed an exparte stay order staying the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Collector (T). If that be so in view of the stay order granted by the Appellate Authority, in our opinion, the petitioner is no entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that the appeals before the App...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›