Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1989(24)LC103(Allahabad)
1. We have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India. Admittedly petitioner has filed an appeal which is still pending before competent authority. It is not disputed that stay application has been filed which is also pending. Without entering into merits of the matter we are of opinion that stay application should be decided expeditiously, if possible within two months, from the date a copy of this 'order is produced. Petitioner shall produce copy of order within ten days from today. Till disposal of stay application recovery proceedings, if any against petitioner shall remain stayed.2. Petition is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ955
ORDERG.B. Singh, J.1. These three connected petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. shall be disposed of by this judgment. Vijai Kumar Soni, petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department at Gonda from 1974 to 1978. During the years 1976 to 1978 some constructions and repairs were made on Bahraich-Faizabad-Azamgarh Road and Colonelganj - Kukurbhukwa - Gonda Road. Brick ballasts, stone ballasts and bricks were supplied by the Thekedars for the aforesaid purpose. These constructions and repairs were carried on under the supervision of Vijai Kumar Soni. It seems that the complaints were made against him that he had misappropriated the material supplied and failed to account for them. The State Government, therefore, entrusted the matter to the Vigilance Department. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Department), Faizabad, entrusted the matter to a Vigilance Inspector for investigation. He found that Vijai Kumar Soni misappropriated 33.92 cubic metres of brick ballasts w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1989(59)FLR386]; (1990)ILLJ425All
B.L. Loomba, J.1. This is employer's writ petition against the workman challenging the validity of two orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Lucknow, in industrial dispute referred by Government Order No. 11280, dated December 2, 1985. The first order under challenge is dated April 23, 1986 contained in Annexure 4 whereby the prayer of the petitioner-employer for deciding the issue of domestic enquiry being fair and proper as preliminary issue was rejected. The second order is also of the same date contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition whereby the workman's application, dated April16, 1986 seeking change of his representative to present his case before the Tribunal was allowed.2. The first question arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether in the facts of the case the rejection of prayer of the employer for decision about the domestic enquiry being fair and valid as a preliminary issue was justified and proper and secondly, whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1989]179ITR206(All)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. The validity of Section 279 of the Income-tax Act empowering the Commissioner to initiate prosecution has been challenged. In the alternative, it is urged that since a reference is pending in this court, the action of the Commissioner is arbitrary. Reliance has also been placed on Sub-clause (i) of Clause 8 of the circular issued by the Government of India that as per the Board's existing guidelines, no proceedings be initiated against the assessee if he was aged seventy years and above. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we consider it unnecessary either to decide the validity of the section or the legal question, if the proceedings could be initiated during reference, as we are of the opinion that in case the last submission that the petitioner was aged 70 years was correct, then the proceedings should be dropped. But that is a question of fact which can be effectively decided by the Magistrate himself. 3. Therefore, we decide this petition b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ879
M.M. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order dt. 7-6-1978 passed by Sri Rati Ram, the then V Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah by which he had convicted Devendra Singh appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Munshi Lal deceased and Devendra Singh appellant were residents of the same place, i.e. village Mahua Khera, P. S. Sakit, District Etah. In the said village one Pandit Chandra Shekhar aged about 75 years was also living. He had married for the third time a young girl named Urmila. She was aged about 27 years at the time of the incident.3. According to the case of the prosecution on 28-4-76 in the afternoon the appellant had misbehaved with aforesaid Smt. Urmila. On the same Munshi Lal deceased and his brother P.W. 2 Kashi Ram informant asked the appellant to desist from doing the same. The appellant felt it ill and went to his house to bring out a gun.4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 28-4-1976 at ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ967
ORDER1. Sri Parmatma Saroup, the then Sessions Judge, Budaun, vide his judgment and order dated 6-9-78, passed in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 288 of 1977, has convicted Sabir and Hamid alias Jugnu under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against this order and judgment they have come up through the present appeal.2. The prosecution story may be summarised as follows:--One Misri Khan was father of P.W. 1 Natthoo and grandfather of P.W. 2 Mehdi Hasan. The accused appellant Sabir who was just a boy of 1714 years of age at the time of incident is daughter's son of Misri Khan. The other accused appellant Hameed alias Jugnu, who was 21 years of age at the time of this occurrence, is the son of the daughter of Misri Khan's brother. Sabir Khan and his parents are all residents of village Shakilpur, which lies within the police station Bilari, district Moradabad but for the last 4 or 5 years prior to this occu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ973
S.I. Jafri, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Ram Narayan Yadav seeking thereby to set aside the conviction under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentences of two years' R.I. and one year's R.I. under the aforementioned sections respectively awarded to him in Criminal Trial No. 2 of 1979 by Sri S. S. Srivastava, Special Judge, Deoria, vide his judgment and order dated 12-8-1983 in S.T. No. 2 of 1979.2. Before descending on the prosecution case on the date of occurrence, it is worthwhile to delineate the facts and circumstances bearing upon the prosecution case preceding the date of occurrence in order to properly appreciate the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in aid thereof. The allegations are that the appellant was a Trainee Sub Inspector and was posted at Police Station, Rudrapur, District Deoria in the year 1978. Chandrama Prasad Kewat complainant of the instant case was a resident of village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC15; 1989(24)LC123(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT614(All)
ORDER1. The petitioner, a co-operating body, in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., is aggrieved by the order dated 10th January, 1989 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise directing the petitioner not to remove the molasses which are said to be involved in auto combustion without paying the central excise duty. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India. We have also heard the lqarned counsel for the State. We are of the opinion that the interest of the parties can be adequately safeguarded by directing that the dispute which is already pending before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and which relates to the dispute whether the molasses is unfit for consumption may be decided by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner. The payment of excise duty or removal of the goods shall be subject to the orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1990All99
1. Shri Nafis Ahmad Kazmi, the learned counsel for the respondents, objects to the maintainability of this appeal, under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that an appeal under the said provision lies to this Court only against decision or order of a District Court made otherwise than in appeal and the impugned order, which is not an order made otherwise than in appeal, has been passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, and the Court of a Civil Judge is not a District Court as contemplated by the Act.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act reads thus:--'(2) Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court, may 'appeal to the High Court.'3. A bare perusal of the above provision leaves no room for doubt that an appeal, under Section 75(2) of the Act, lies to High Court only agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1990]76STC355(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee briefly stated are that the assessee is a sole proprietorship concern of Sri B.P. Garg, who was carrying on business of matches and was also a guarantor for payment of Coal (India) Limited, Calcutta. The assessee is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, it has been alleged by the assessee that it was acting as a guarantor for payment of Coal (India) Limited, Calcutta, or its subsidiary companies from where the coal is sent to the District Magistrate, Aligarh. The assessee got certain amount of commission for the services rendered by it. According to the assessee it was only a nominated coal agent of the District Magistrate, Aligarh, for ensuring the payment to Coal (India) Limited, Calcutta, and also for collecting the payment from various consumers on behal...
Tag this Judgment!