Allahabad Court September 1988 Judgments
Satish Chandra Saxena and ors. Vs. Krishna Prasad Saxena and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All34
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. Since in this revision parties are represented and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged it is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. The present revision is preferred as against an order dated 11th April, 1988, by virtue of which an application for amendment of the written statement was rejected. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present revision is not maintainable in view of the proviso of Section 115, C.P.C. Under the second proviso it is referred : --'.....the High Court or the District Courtshall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR578(All); [1990]49TAXMAN184(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Wealth-tax Commissioner dated July 19, 1983, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner seeking waiver under Section 18B(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957,2. Penalty was imposed against the petitioner as returns for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69 were not filed in time. Thereupon, the petitioner made an application under Section 18B of the Act seeking waiver on the ground that returns for all the aforesaid years had been filed by him voluntarily and in good faith before receiving notice under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act from the authorities and that the wealth disclosed by him was fully accepted by the authorities. The contention of the petitioner that he had satisfied all the requirements of Section 18B(1)(a) of the Wealth tax Act was not accepted by the Commissioner and he refused to grant waiver. The reasoning given by the Commissioner was that income-tax was being r...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Ramanand Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC49(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. During the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee carried on business in gur, foodgrains, etc. The account books of the assessee were accepted. It purchased gur, etc., on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals against verbal orders and packed the same in his own gunny bags which were purchased by the assessee in his own account. Thereafter the packed bags were sent to ex-U.P. principals. Admittedly the price of the commodity supplied and of gunny bags were charged separately but commission was charged for both the prices. The assessing authority treated the transaction in bardana to be separate from the transaction of purchasing agency of gur, etc. and held that the supply of bardana was a sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and accordingly he levied Central sales tax on the assessee. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) upheld the said assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal has, by the impugned order, again uphe...
Tag this Judgment!Leena Gupta Vs. Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu Universit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All35
Khare, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has come up before this court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Director of the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to admit her in M.B.B.S. course.2. Kumari Leena Gupta, the petitioner, was admitted in B.Sc., Part I course in Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi in the year 1986-87. It appears that her attendance fell short, and she could not appear in B.Sc. Part I in the said year. In the academic year 1987-88 she took readmission in B.Sc. Part I in the said college. She claims to have pursued her studies in the said course in the academic year 1987-88. The Institute of Medical Science of Banaras Hindu Universtity imparts education and examines students for M.B.B.S. Course. For that purpose the Academic council of the University has framed Ordinance. Fifty seats in the course are available every year for admission to Ist Year M.B.B.S. course in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Usha Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(All)33; [1989]175ITR572(All); [1988]41TAXMAN167(All)
1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund Regulations and United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption from tax on the amount of Rs. 60,427 received by way of pension from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts which were before the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Dipali Goswami : [1985]156ITR36(Cal) . In that case, the Calcutta High Court considered the question whether the pension received by the widow of an employee of the United Nations who died in harness would be exempt from tax. The Calcutta High Court held that keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 18(...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Iii Additional District Judge, Azamgarh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All14
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J.1. Whether the findings, which were essentially findings of fact, given by the trial Court about the 'sufficient cause', having been made out by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for restoring the suit, can be set aside by the revisional Court under Section 115 of the Code, or only questions pertaining to the jurisdiction could have been gone into by the revisional Court and whether the grounds for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act) could be re-examined by the Revisiona! Court are the short questions for consideration in the present petition filed by the defendants under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the relief for writ of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 7-9-1987 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, in revision.2. The portrayal of essential facts are these. The plaintiff? respondent No. 2 has filed Suit No. 337 of 1983 in the Court of Munsiff fo...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ544
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 5.3.1986 by Mr. R. L. Soni, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. He has convicted accused-appellant Vinod Kumar on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story is that Smt. Anita alias Babli was married to the accused-appellant Vinod Kumar on or about 9.5.1983. It was a love marriage. The accused was previously living in a railway quarter in Saharanpur. After the marriage and about 10 to 12 days before the occurrence he shifted to a rented house in Mohalla-Shormiyan which happens to be behind a mosque. This house is owned by one Gokul Prasad but has separate entity. The evidence is that the accused-appellant was not treating his wife properly after marriage. He was a petty empbyee in a Cotton Mill and his employment was either temporary or as a Daily Wager. Therefore, after the marriage he started using his wife fo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manorama Srivastava and anr. Vs. Smt. Saroj Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All17
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. An application under Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act was moved by Smt. Manorama Srivastava, describing herself as the widow of Dr. Mithlesh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) and Km. Khushboo, minor daughter of the aforesaid deceased through applicant No. 1 under her guardianship (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for the grant of probate or Letter of Administration with a copy of the Will dated 26th April, 1986. Thereafter a caveat was filed on behalf of Smt. Saroj Srivastava also describing as widow of late Dr. Mithlesh Kumar Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in which it was stated that she had applied for succession certificate in the District Court. She also filed a reply by means of counter affidavit which was subsequently converted into written statement objecting to the claim made by the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiff asserted in her aforesaid petition that Dr. Mithlesh Kumar Srivastava died at Allahabad on 15th November, 1986, l...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrapal Vs. the Collector, Fatehpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All73
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J. 1. Whether the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, (for short the Act) read with Arms Rules, 1962, (for short the Rules), can be filed within thirty days from the date of order or from the date of service of the order on the person against whom the impugned order revoking the licence has been passed, and what is the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'within thirty days from the date of issue of the order', are the short questions that fall for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-10-86 passed by the District Magistrate dismissing the appeal as time barred and the order dated 4-12-84 revoking the licence.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a peaceful citizen and on the basis of some false report lodged against him at Police Station Thariyaon, Fatehpur, and without any information to the peti...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Traders and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: [1990]76STC194(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By the impugned order dated 14th May, 1982, passed under Section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the Sales Tax Tribunal has directed the assessing authority to include the freight realised from the purchaser in the taxable turnover of the assessee.2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said inward freight in this case was separately charged and, therefore it was not liable to be included in the taxable turnover.3. After hearing learned Standing Counsel and after perusing the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has specifically found in the present case that the bills drawn by the assessee-petitioners separately showed the amount of freight charged by them. The Tribunal has, however, held that the said amount is liable to be included by the assessing authority in the taxable turnover. Earlier in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Vinod Coal Syndicate [1982] 51 STC 24 ; 1981 UPTC 891,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »