Allahabad Court January 1990 Judgments
Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1973
Palok Basu, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Kumar against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life recorded by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, by his judgment and order dated 6-12-1978.2. The case is that Smt. Krishna Devi (deceased), wife of the appellant, had eloped with one Shivanath a few months prior to the occurrence. The father of Smt. Krishna Devi could procure the presence of Smt. Krishna Devi and saw to it that she lived in the house of Pancham Lal temporarily, who is related to Smt. Krishna Devi, being the son of the Sarhu of the father of the deceased. The prosecution case further is that Ram Kumar appellant had gone to the house of Pancham Lal and had talked with Smt. Krishna Devi and requested her to accompany to his village. A point-blank refusal by Smt. Krishna Devi resulted in a verbal altercation between the two. The result was that the appellant got infuriated and attacked Smt. Krishna Devi with a knife which he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Harvansh Sahai Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR693]; (1991)IILLJ287All; (1990)1UPLBEC220
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recruit the petitioner in a suitable vacancy at the place of his father late Shri Ram Dularey Lal Srivastava, U.D.A. Section Administrative B, Allahabad High Court in view of the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1974). It has also been prayed that, that part of the Rules, 1974 be declared as null and void which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the pesent writ petition are that the petitioner's father late Sri Ram Dularey Lal Srivastava died on 8th August, 1973. At the time of his death he was employed in the High Court at Allahabad as U.D.A. in Section Administrative -B. According to the petitioner he is the only son of late Shri Ram Dularey Lal Sivastava and he was minor at the time of the death of his fa...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Smt. Malti Gaur Connected with Vijai Deep Singh Vs. Stat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1894
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. The present case was registered on the basis of suo motu notice issued by this Court for cancellation of bail against Vijai Deep Singh on 21-9-1989. On the next day i.e. 22-9-89 an application was moved by Smt. Malti Devi complainant of this case for cancellation of bail. It is not disputed that the bail application of Vijai Deep Singh has been rejected on merits by Sri K. S. Srivastava, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, twice and therefore, Vijai Deep Singh moved an application for bail before this Court which was heard at great length by Hon'ble S. H. A. Raza, J. In the meantime before an order could be passed by this Court, a third bail application was moved before the court below which was heard and allowed by Sri R. N. Singh, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. Vijai Deep Singh was challened in a case under Section 302, IPC by the police of P. S. Husainganj, Lucknow. He moved an application for bail before ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Mohrawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2068
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. The present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by one Vinod Kumar challenging the order dated 7-10-1989 passed by the VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad, rejecting the application moved by the revisionist for accepting additional evidence in revision. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the said application holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to accept additional evidence in revision. The sole point involved in this petition is whether Sessions Court has power to accept additional evidence in revision or not.2. The facts of the case are that opposite party Smt. Mohrawati moved an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate concerned who by his order dated 30-3-1987 awarded maintenance of Rs. 300/-. Aggrieved by the said order Vinod Kumar filed a revision and in revision he also moved an application for permission to file some papers as additional evidence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concer...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kishan Gupta Vs. Ram Babu Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All171
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. An order making reference of dispute between the parties to arbitration passed by the Court below is under challenge in this appeal,2. In order to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it will be necessary to have some facts forming the background of the parties' relations and all the controversy between them. Admittedly the parties are real brothers and they along with their father Pyare Lal used to carry on partnership business along with. Rajendra Kumar under a Deed of Partnership dated 31st April, 1964. The business that they carried on was under the name, and style of M/s Indian Industries and Steel Company This business, continued upto 15th of October, 1973 when Rajendra Kumar, retired from, the firm and the remaining three partners, reconstituted themselves into a partnership firm on 16th October, 1973, each having 1/3rd share in the profits and losses. The father Pyare Lal died on 25th February, 1977, and subsequently there was again reco...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Travel Agents Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR212(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that whereas questions Nos. (a) and (c) cannot be said to raise questions of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, question No. (b) is a question of law which does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts of the case and in law and specially in the light of the CBDT Circular referred to in CIT v. V. H. Sheth : [1984]148ITR169(Bom) , the Tribunal was right in ruling that the association of travel agents could still be assessed to income-tax as an association of persons even after the prior assessment of such income in the hands of its constituents, thus resulting in double taxation ?'2. The application is, accordingly, allowed in part. The parties will bear their own costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rana Metal Tubes Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC440(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacture and sale of steel pipes and tubes claiming to be a new unit and entitled to the exemption from sales tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioners filed an application for the grant of an eligibility certificate. The application was considered by the Divisional Level Committee. It found that the petitioners were a new unit which would be deemed to have gone into production on October 3, 1983, within the meaning of explanation (1) to Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The application was, however, rejected on the short ground that the petitioners' unit was registered under the Factories Act, 1948, subsequently, i.e., on January 1, 1985. The Divisional Level Committee appears to be of the view that inasmuch as this registration under the Factories Act took place after the unit had gone into production, the petitioners could not be granted eligibility certificate.2. The view taken by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT3(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. This petition is primarily directed against a show cause notice dated 6-10-1986 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the refund claim submitted by them for the refund of Rs. 28,31,472.73 may not be rejected. As the parties have exchanged affidavits the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of counsel for the parties.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition lie within a narrow compass and there is not much dispute between the parties on those facts. They may be briefly summarised thus.3. The petitioner, a public limited company, carries on the business of manufacturing and selling torches, dry cell batteries and miniature bulbs, etc. On the goods manufactured by it, it pays excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On March 28, 1977 it submitted a refund claim in respect of the duty stated to have been paid in excess on electric...
Tag this Judgment!Pushkar NaraIn Sarraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR388(All)
A.N. Verma, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct and true interpretation, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that the presumption raised under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was limited in its scope and was rebuttable (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct and true interpretation, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that the existence of the presumption available under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not do away with the burden which the assessee had of establishing the requisites of cash credits under Section 68'of the Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the additions su...
Tag this Judgment!Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC17; 1990(47)ELT311(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. By this petition the petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacture of torches of brass, seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on a sum of Rs. 65,53,508.86 at the rate of 15% from 11-4-1983 to 26-8-1986.2. The facts as succinctly stated, are that the petitioner while manufacturing torches, also manufacture intermediary product, commonly known as brass barrel, which product according to the petitioner is not excisable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly 'the Act, 1944'). The Central Excise Department, however, took the stand that brass barrels manufactured by the petitioner, were excisable and realised the excise duty aggregating to Rs. 65,53,508.86 from the petitioner during the period from 1-7-1974 to 31-4-1983, which the petitioner paid under protest.3. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), New Delhi, against the order of the Excise Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »