Allahabad Court July 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.
Abdul Hafeez Khan Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC411; 1990LC68(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT235(All)
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Shri Abdul Hafeez for quashing the demand notices of duty in form :-(i) DD-2 No. 152747 dated 23-5-1968, amount Rs. 2,941.20(ii) DD-2 No. 153252 dated 30-9-1970, amount Rs. 2,679.40 (iii) DD-2 No. 153253 dated 20-9-1970, amount Rs. 3,006.20The total amount demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 8,626.80 plus 10 per cent collection charges.2. The petitioner's observation is that without having given a show cause notice before issuing the demand notices, the Central Excise Authorities did not have the power to issue the demand notices.3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Excise Department justifying the demand on the ground that under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules the petitioner could not have removed the dutiable goods kept in the warehouse without the permission of the Excise Authorities and as the petitioner was guilty of having committed a breach of the said rule, the Exc...
NaraIn Pasi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2552
A.N. Varma, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge at the stage of admission on the ground that there was an apparent conflict of views in regard to the question which shall be elaborated presently. The two decisions which have led to the reference are reported in 1982 UP Cri R 259 : 1981 Lucknow LJ III : (1982 Cri LJ NOC 43) Tej Babu Singh v. State and 1983 All Cri C 9 : 1982 All LJ 1520, (Bhole v. State).2. The application is directed against the order dated 6-4-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur remanding the applicants to the custody of the police under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. subject to the following safeguards:(i) The applicants shall be medically examined before being remanded to the police custody and immediately after their return from such custody to judicial custody.(ii) During their custody the police shall not adopt any third degree methods, whether physical or mental, nor shall the...
Kripa Shanker Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR183(All); [1989]47TAXMAN359(All)
K.C. Agrawal, Actg. C.J. 1. This is an assessee's writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated October 7, 1987, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Allahabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 61 (Allahabad) of 1987 (Kripa Shanker v. Wealth-tax Officer).2. For deciding the controversy involved, the facts of the case are not required to be elaborately stated. Ram Narain and Badri Prasad formed two different Hindu undivided families. Badri Prasad died leaving behind Kripa Shanker as his heir and legal representative. As against the orders passed under the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax and Wealth-tax (Appeals), Agra, which were decided on October 20, 1986. As against the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals, the Wealth-tax Officer preferred appeals to the Income-tax...
Bhatia Metal Containers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR58]; (1990)IILLJ534All
S.D. Agarwala J.1. This petition under, Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 10th March, 1989 by which the Director of Factories, U.P. Kanpur, has asked the petitioner company to give the name of a Director who would be deemed to be an occupier of the petitioner.2. Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines an 'occupier'. It reads as under:'2(n). 'Occupier' of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory.' Proviso (ii) to Sub-section (n) of Section 2 of the Act is relevant for the purposes of this Act. It reads as under:'Proviso (ii). In the case of a company, any one of the Directors shall be deemed to be the occupier.'3. From a reading of the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(n) of the Act read with the second proviso, it is clear that in the case of a company, one of the Directors shall be deemed to be an 'occupier'. This amendment in the definition of the word 'occupier' has been brought about by...
Gopi Krishna Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC36; 1990LC89(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT182(All)
ORDER1. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.B. Singh for the Union of India. The petitioner is entitled to the release of goods seized from his custody in view of the orders dated 22-12-1987 and 24-12-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector. In compliance of these orders the petitioner has made the deposit of the amounts in cash with the Assistant Collector (Central Excise), Allahabad. The petitioner's case after having deposited the aforesaid amounts, is that he is entitled to the release of goods confiscated but the Assistant Collector unjustifiably and without any rhyme or reason is refusing to return the goods to the petitioner.2. In reply to the petition a counter-affidavit has been filed. It has been stated that as against the orders mentioned above, the Union of India has filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi and that one month time be granted to the Union of India for obtaining stay order. To us it appears that this petit...
Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India Vs. Industrial Tri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR582]; (1990)ILLJ548All
B.L. Yadav, J.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd March, 1988 (Annexure 11 to the petition), directing that the employer can put such questions in cross-examination which are germane to the controversy and which have already been taken in the pleadings and not beyond that.2. The factual matrics are these. A complaint was filed by the workman concerned under Section 6(f) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1967, (for short 'the Act'), alleging that he has been dismissed on the charges framed, and on that, notices were issued to the petitioner Corporation, which has filed objection. On behalf of the petitioner 5 witnesses were examined, whereas on behalf of complainant M.P. Singh, respondent No. 2, appeared and made his statement in the examination-in-chief. He was called for cross-examination by the petitioner on 2nd March, 1988 on the points averred by him in his affidavit. The questions in the cross-examinatio...
Ram Preet Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ400
ORDERS.I. Jafri, J.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State,2. This application is under Section 439/482, Cr.P.C. seeking the relief of bail to the applicant.3. A brief resume of the case is that a First Information Report under Section 406, I.P.C. was lodged at P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar on 7-12-1988 by one Sri Nepal Gupta. The applicant was employed and residing at Jhansi working as Electrical Data Processing Operator in B.H.E.L. Jhansi. After the First Information Report having been lodged at Haridwar against the applicant and subsequently warrant of arrest having been issued by the Munsif Magistrate (LCC) Haridwar against the applicant, the police of Jhansi arrested the applicant and produced him before the Chief Judl. Magistrate Jhansi, who granted bail to the applicant for seven days in order to enable him to surrender before the Munsif Magistrate (LCC) Haridwar. Upon being released on bail by the C.J.M. Jhan...
Virendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC37; 1990LC44(Allahabad); 1990(45)ELT224(All)
K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for the following relief:'To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized currency, National Saving Certificates, and Fixed Deposit Receipts forthwith.'2. It appears that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner for the offences alleged to have been committed by him under certain sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In connection with the detection of the offences a raid was organised at the premises of the petitioner and National Saving Certificates, Fixed Deposit Receipts and cash a sum of rupees one lakh fourteen thousand and odd was seized along with the drugs. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the authorities did not have power to seize National Saving Certificates and Fixed Deposit Receipts which were of a date much earlier to the commission of the offence by th...
Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC34
ORDERK.C. Agrawal A.C.J.1. The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd., Renukoot, district Mirzapur for the reliefs-quashing the Superintendent (Audit's) direction contained in his letter dated 31.12.1987 and for mandamus directing the Superintendent not to press for recovery of credit of duty during the pendency of the writ petition.2. The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder and other chemicals at Renukoot. For manufacturing caustic soda the petitioner are using titanium electrodes duly coated with special coating, which work as anodes. The petitioners claim that it was since engaged in manufacture of the above articles use raw materials on which excise duty had already been paid and it was entitled to the benefit of the rules which are generally known as MODVAT Rules. The petitioners further asserted that MODVAT...
Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All23
ORDER1. The basic question to be decided in the present petition is whether a revision under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, can be decided in terms of the compromise.2. The undisputed facts are:--The petitioner has been a tenant of the shop situated in Bazar Bilari, District Moradabad at monthly rent of Rs. 210/- since 1977.3. The respondent-No. 3 after terminating the tenancy filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 24 of 1983 against the petitioner for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. After contest, the suit was decreed on 5-1-1988.4. The petitioner filed revision under S. 25 of Small Cause Courts Act.During the pendency of the revision, the parties entered into a compromise. A compromise application dated 7-12-1988 duly signed by both the parties and verified by respective counsel, was filed before the revisional court. The contents of the compromise application, are not relevant at all for this court.5. The revisional court vide order dated 7-12-1988 wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »