Allahabad Court August 1988 Judgments
Lallan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ463
Madan Mohan Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dt. 16-12-1977 passed by Sri Kishun Lal, the then VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad by which he has convicted Lallan appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life thereunder.2. Taluqa Prasad and Gama were two real brothers. Gama had not married. He had, therefore, adopted his nephew Lakhan, son of Taluqa Prasad. Lakhan was living with Gama and was looking after his property, including agricultural land. Lallan, appellant, who was the other son of Taluqa Prasad, was jealous on account of the same.3. Gama and Mohd. Usman were friends and were on visiting terms with each other. Lallan, appellant, did not like the said friendship and intimate relations between them. The appellant Lallan was carrying an impression that it was only on account of Mohd. Usman, deceased, that Ganga had not given any share in his property to him but had given his entire property to Lakhan....
Tag this Judgment!H.C.L. Ltd. (Reprographics Division) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC347(Allahabad)
1. Upon bearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, we finally dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Saharanpur, respondent no. 2, shall, within 14 days from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order, dispose of the 'approval of the price list' matter pending before him for fresh consideration pursuant to the order of the Collector dated 28.1.1988 (Annexure 4) in accordance with law and as undertaken a certified copy of this order shall be filed by the petitioner within three days from today.2. A certified copy of this order be handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges, in the course of day....
Tag this Judgment!Hind Lamps Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ230All
ORDERS.K. Dhaon, J.1. On 9th Aug. 1973, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner Company and the representative of the workmen and was registered under Section 4-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Before the Conciliation Officer, one of the items of the settlement was 'good attendance leave'. The object of this particular settlement was to prevent heavy absenteeism. Certain incentives were given to the workmen. Under the scheme, allowance was made for 52 weekly holidays, 14 days for full paid leave, 9 days for causal leave and 11 days for festival holidays. It was provided that a workman, who had put in a minimum attendance of 268 days in the previous calendar year was entitled to 2 days leave during the subsequent calendar year, the workman who had put in a minimum attendance of 270 days in the previous calendar year was entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Bahal Vs. Smt. Manju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All9
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The present revision is directed as against an order dated 8th January, 1985, passed in a suit for divorce filed by the respondent in which maintenance was granted to the respondent in the said proceedings.2. In revision, the grounds raised were that the Court below committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order without giving any specific finding with regard to the income and means of the applicant and without considering other matters. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a compromise has been arrived at in the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984, which has been annexed as Annexure I to the rejoinder affidavit and by virtue of that compromise the suit for divorce is to be decreed. In view of the Family Court being established the proceedings pending in various Courts including the one impugned in the present suit stands transferred to the said Family Court by virtue of Section 8 of the said Act.3. It is relev...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ509
1. Eight persons in all including the present appellant Nathulal and seven other persons namely Meharban, Ghurai, Jagdish, Girdhari, Narainlal, Jagannath and Lakhan Ram faced their trial before Mr. R.P. Gupta, I, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. A 142 of 1977 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 201 and 364 of the I.P.C. By his judgment and order D/- 24-8-1978 the learned Sessions Judge did not find any case made out against the remaining seven persons except Nathu Lal and acquitted them. Against Nathulal, however, the charges under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. were found to be made out. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and two years' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Now he comes up in appeal.2. The prosecution case was that one Babu Ram was resident of village Simra Kesaupur, Police Station, Faridpur, district Bareilly, Ram Saran who is the first informant of this case, was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Pon Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR118(All)
B.N. Misra, J.1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the assessee, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer questions Nos. 2, 5 and 8 as extracted hereunder, to this court :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in allowing the interest of Rs. 2,02,550 claimed by the assessee on the borrowed money utilised in granting advance without interest ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,96,150 received on account of security deposits for cops but appropriated towards the sale proceeds ? 8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Abdul Jalil Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR109(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the department and the assessee in person.2. No statable question of law arises in respect of question No. 1, as this question has already been decided in Ram Saran's case [1987] 168 ITR 485. However, we reframe question No. 2 and direct the Tribunal to state the case on the question as reframed hereunder :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules framed with effect from 1-4-1979 is applicable to the assessments for the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1979-80 and also applicable to self-occupied property ?'This application is accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Motor (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Jaswant Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All1
S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether a defence of a tenant can be struck off for non-compliance of Rule 5 of Order XV as added by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, (U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). Hon. B. N. Sapru, J. by his order dated 29th April, 1987 when the revision came up for hearing before him, directed that the papers of the case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to consider the following questions : --1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ganpat Giri v. II Addl. District Judge, AIR 1986 SC 589 the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the C.P. C. stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the Central Act? 2. Whether the Central Amendments having come into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977 repealed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Tewari Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All43
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present revision is being disposed of finally since the respondents have been served in this case and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.2. The present revision is directed as against the order dt. 3rd Nov. 1987 by virtue of which an application by the present defendant-applicant to implead the National Insurance company was rejected.3. A suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of amount which they had given on loan to the present applicant. It is in that suit that an application was moved by the applicant to implead the National Insurance Company since the truck for which the loan was obtained was insured. The trial court rejected the said application by saying that it is open to the plaintiff to implead such party as he desires. Therefore, non-impleadment of the National Insurance Company could not affect the adjudication of the right between the plaintiffs and defendant in the present case and ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandeshwar Pande Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT24(All)
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent at length.2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in respect of the same show-cause notice (Annexure-8 to this writ petition) and by order dated 17.2.88 this Court had finally disposed of the said petition with a direction to the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, to decide the objections which had been raised by the petitioner on the question whether he was liable to be proceeded against under Rules 198 and 173(q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner's grievance is against the decision of the Collector, Central Excise, who has, by his order dated 4.8.1988, held that the petitioner had been rightly impleaded as a party to the show-cause notice and was liable for further action as indicated in the said show-cause notice. On scrutiny of the order we find that this conclusion of the Collector is not at all supported by any reasons...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »