Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990ACJ41; AIR1990All30; [1993]76CompCas624(All)
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. A preliminary question as to the maintainability of the appeal has come up for consideration in the present appeal.2. On an award being made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under S. 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter 'oldAct') on a date prior to 1-7-1989 an appeal purporting to be one under S. 110-D of the said Act was filed after 1-7-1989. It may be stated that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Act') was enforced w.e.f. 1-7-1989 and under S. 217 of the new Act the 1939 Act was specifically repealed in the new Act an appeal is provided against the award of the Claims Tribunal under S. 173 but it is hedged in with a condition that such an appeal will not be entertained by the High Court by a person who is required to pay any amount under the award unless he deposits twenty five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount awarded, whichever is less.3. Sri A. B. Saran, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990(25)ECC410
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by OPUSINDIA, Industrial Moulding and Combines, and ADVANCE DEVICES for quashing of the order dated 18/11/1988, on the ground that the Assistant Collector wrongly interpreted the impugned notification dated 22.9.1987. The petitioners alternatively claimed that they were entitled to concession under the same and the authorities had wrongly denied them the benefit of concession. 2. Since an appeal under Section 35B can be filed by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid order, which would be more efficacious in the circumstances of the present case, we decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution3. The writ petition is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1990All119
ORDER1. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court and has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing conditions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10, and para 1 of the appointment of State Law Officers in the High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow insofar as it imposes a ban on private practice on them and provides for non-payment of any other fees than the fees mentioned in the said para of the G.O. dated 30-6-1989. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed commanding opposite party No. 1 not to impose the said conditions.2. Learned Additional Advocate-General raised, a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got no right to maintain this petition and it is not a public interest litigation as has been contended by in the writ petition. He has also pointed out that one of the conditions by which the State Law Officers are to maintain diary of the work done by them has already been stated by the Advocate-General. It has been further stated that very recently large...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1989]180ITR427(All)
1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following two questions are statable questions of law : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there were no materials before the Commissioner of Income-tax to justify his finding that the assessment made under Section 143(1) was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (2) Whether the Tribunal's order is wrong on facts and in law in taking into consideration incorrect facts and facts not relevant to the case and in ignoring relevant facts and findings in the order under appeal ?' 2. Therefore, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case with regard to the aforesaid questions and submit the same to this court for its opinion. 3. The case relied upon by the assessee is distinguishable as, in the instant case, the Commissioner had found that there was no evidence on record to prove that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1898
ORDERPalok Basu, J. 1. Meena Oil Products and its three partners have filed Criminal Revision No. 70/1982 against the order of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 30-10-1981 in Criminal Revision No. 6/ 1981 which was filed in his court by the opposite party Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, who had thereby challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 29-3-1981 refusing to implead the producer firm.2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1712/1982 has been preferred by the same four applicants namely, M/s. Meena Oil Products, the alleged producer firm, and, Maqbool Alam, Hasan, and Mushir Alam the alleged partners of the said firm in which the prayer is similar to the one made in the revision.3. Yet another application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 312/1989, has been filed in which the major prayers referred to above have been incorporated as averments in the application and a further prayer has been made praying amendment in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1712/1982 to the effect th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1990All1
ORDERA.N.Varma, J.1. This petition raises a question as to the interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (as it stands after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984). The contention urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel was that if the Collector causes public notice of the substance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act after the publication thereof in the official gazette and two daily newspapers, the entire proceedings under Section 4(1) would be completely invalidated. We have to consider the correctness' of this submission. Before, however, we examine the contention we may briefly set out the essential facts.2. The petitioners claim to be tenure holders of the various plots situate in villages Mandola and Nanu, District Ghaziabad. These plots are among the numerous plots which are the subject-matter of the impugned notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1989)79CTR(All)76; [1989]180ITR448(All); [1989]47TAXMAN13(All)
R K. Gulati, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74.2. The brief facts are these. One Lal Chand Jain, the respondent-assessee, carried on business in iron goods under different names. He initially filed a return of his income on September 7, 1973, showing an income of Rs. 33,965. The business and residential premises of the assessee as well those of his son, Indra Chand Jain, were searched on April 22, 1974, by the income-tax officials. In the search operations, certain cash, stocks and books of account pertaining to the assessee were seized. The assessee-along with other members of his family made a combined petition dated April 2, 1974, under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), to the Income-tax Commissioner, offering a sum of Rs. 80,000 to be taxed.3. Subsequently, this petition was withdrawn and another petition was filed on April 15, 1975, in which different amounts were offered for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 to be ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1989]180ITR483(All); [1989]47TAXMAN67(All)
1. This is a reference of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and relates to the assessment year 1977-78.2. The question for determination is whether Section 187 has any application to the case of a firm, where on the death of one of its partners, it is dissolved and the business of that firm is taken over by a new firm in which one or more partners of the dissolved firm are also partners, that is to say, there are some partners who are common between the erstwhile firm and the new firm.3. The brief facts are that the respondent-assessee-firm, B. M. Jain and Co., was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1971, with three partners. One of the partners, Bengali Mal Jain, died on December 26, 1976, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The surviving partners, along with four others, constituted a new firm with effect from December 27, 1976, and a new ...
Tag this Judgment!