Allahabad Court February 1989 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.
Babu Ram Rajendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC243(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment dated 7th December, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, rejecting the appeal of the applicant against the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, refusing to grant 20 per cent waiver to the applicant for the assessment year 1982-83 (Centre).2. The applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrains in the assessment year in question. Its books of account for the assessment year 1982-83 (U.P.) were accepted under Rule 41(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules by the assessing officer. It is alleged that on the basis of some information, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Bulandshahr, proceeded to assess the applicant under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and as such a notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued to show cause. The case of the applicant is that since it was not carrying on a...
Vedbir Singh Bhattewale Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC240(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, relating to the assessment year 1983-84.2. According to the facts alleged by the applicant, the assessing authority passed an assessment order on 31st December, 1987, fixing the liability of tax jointly on Vedbir Singh and Mukesh Kumar for the said assessment year. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the assessing authority filed an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Bulandshahr, along with an application for waiver of the condition of deposit of 20 per cent of the assessed tax for the entertainment of the appeal. The said application was rejected. Thereupon the assessee feeling aggrieved filed a second appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal which by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part and...
J.S. Huja and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1334
ORDERRajeshwar Singh, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. wherein three applicants who are being prosecuted for violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, have prayed that the complaint pending in the court of the Magistrate against them and filed by Law Officer of U. P. Pollution Control Board be quashed. The following points were pressed at the time of admission initially:1. The applicants, even if they are Directors, cannot be prosecuted, because Directors cannot be prosecuted for the offence.2. The applicants are not Directors.3. The applicants are old persons suffering from various ailments.4. The applicants reside at different places.5. No statement was recorded before issuing summons to the applicants.6. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties.2. When the Court proposed to dictate the order, the learned Counsel made a request that the case be listed again for admission. The Court ordered on 7-2-89 that the case...
Pramod Kumar Manglik and Etc. Vs. (Smt.) Sadhna Rani and Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1772
Palok Basu, J.1. A learned single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision reported in 1986 All WC 51 : 1986 Cri LJ 365, Shakuntala Devi v. State, has referred the following three questions for consideration by a larger bench:1. Whether the word 'may' in Proviso (1) of Section 437, Cr. P.C. is directory or mandatory?2. Whether the word 'may' used in Proviso (1) of Section 437, Cr. P.C. is to be read as 'shall' and 'must'?3. Whether the decision reported in 1986 Cri LJ page 365, Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. lays down a correct proposition of law?2. Another learned single Judge, being of the view that Shakuntala Devi's case (supra) requires reconsideration, has referred the matter to larger Bench.3. In the former case Pramod Kumar Manglik, the informant has prayed that Smt. Sadhna Rani's bail granted by the Magistrate on the strength of Shakuntala's case, be cancelled. In the later case, Smt. Chandrawati, an accused, seeks bail on the ground that the4. We have heard Shri A. B....
State of U.P. Vs. Vijai Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ948
B.L. Loomba, J.1. This State appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21-7-78 of Shri P. N. Roy, the then Sessions Judge, Kheri, whereby he acquitted all the 10 accused-respondents of the charges under Sections 147/148/302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201, read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, for which they stood trial in S.L. No. 261 of 77, Bhagwandin aged about 60 years resident of village Kakraha, Police Station Maigalganj, district Kheri was murdered and his dead body was found lying on the Rasta in the vicinity of the temple near the village surrounded by standing sugarcane fields on both its sides on 21-9-76. The severed head was found in the ditch near the place of murder. According to the prosecution case this murder took place at about 11 a.m. on 21-9-76 when the deceased along with his son Ram Chandra, who is complainant in the case and has appeared as P.W. 1, was going to the temple for the Darshans. Deceased Bhagwandin had cr...
Prestige Cops Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: 1991(36)LC441(Allahabad)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. M/s. Prestige Cops Pvt. Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner', in the relevant period was engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing plastic bottom & top adopters and plastic sleeves, from duty paid ABS moulding powder which as per the petitioner were plastic goods covered by the entry 'articles made of plastic all sorts' under tariff item 15A(2) of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act). It was also the claim of the petitioner that the aforesaid goods were entitled to exemption from excise duty in view of the notification No. 68/71 dated 25th May, 1971 as amended by notification No. 198/78 dated 25th Nov., 1978. The classification list submitted by the petitioners was, however, not accepted by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector, NOIDA, who held that goods manufactured by the petitioner were components of cops classifiable under tariff item No. 68 and were dutiable accordingly. In view of the dec...
Prakash Security Devices (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT633(All)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in assembling and making a device for sounding alarm, registered as small scale industries, thus entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and obtaining of any licence under Rule 174 (licensing) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is aggrieved by order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise levying penalty under Rule 210 and determining duty under the Act.2. Although the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector that fire alarms manufactured by the petitioner falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and now under heading No. 8531.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were goods, was challenged as the finding was recorded without affording any opportunity in proceedings initiated for non-obtaining of licence but it is not necessary to decide it as the order is liable to be set aside on the legal issue that the goods were exempt from any duty in mat...
Tulsi Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR435(All)
1. By this petition, a direction is sought to the opposite parties to open a tin box in which the bundles of jewellery of the petitioners have been kept in search proceedings conducted under Section 132 of the income-tax Act, against Jagdish Lal Shah. It is claimed that the petitioners are ladies of the family of Jagdish Lal Shah and when the search and seizure were carried on by the Department, gold was recovered from their rooms and it was taken away by the Department in respect of which proceedings were taken and assessment order was passed under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act and, later on, a regular assessment order was also passed against Sri Shah.2. The claim of the petitioners is that even though they raised an objection, the Income-tax Officer did not afford any opportunity under Section 132(5) and their apprehension is that their objection filed under Section 132(11) of the Act may be disposed of by opposite party No. 1 without opening the tin box and affording an oppor...
Achhaibar Pandey (In Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ958
B.N. Katju, Ag. C.J.1. Achhaibar Pandey has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 1979 against the judgment of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria dated 29-2-1979 passed in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1976 convicting him under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and sentenceing him to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The State of U. P. has filed Government Appeal No. 2200 of 1979 against the acquittal of Vindhyachal Pandey, Janardan Pandey, Biten Misra, Gulab Misra, Bhardul Misra, Hasani Ram, Komal Prasad, Kashi, Chhatthu, Munesar and Achhaibar Pandey under Sections 302/149. 307/149, 148 and 147, I.P.C. by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid case.2. Achhaibar Pandey and Janardan Pandey accused are the sons of Vindhyachal Pandey accused. Gulab Misra, Biten Misra and Bhardul Misra accused are the sons of Jagdish Misra. Komal Prasad and Munesar accused are the sons of Sambharu. All the accused are residents of village Beldar Pandit. Prem Ch...
Shyam Babu and Etc. Vs. Xiith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989All184
ORDERS.K. Dhaon, J.1. In these three petitions the sole controversy is common. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Long back the Estate Officer, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed separate orders of eviction of the petitioners from the public premises of which they were found to be in unauthorised occupation. These orders became final. For the purposes of evicting the petitioners from, and taking possession of, the public premises under the occupation of the petitioners the Estate Officer duly authorised one Sri Om Prakash, the Building Officer of the Cantonment Board, Allahabad. This authorisation was challenged by the petitioners by separate appeals. These appeals have been dismissed by the XIIth Additional District Judge by separate but similar orders. The learned Judge has taken the view that the appeals are not competent und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »