Allahabad Court October 1990 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Zarda Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR117(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to grant of registration for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. An application for fresh registration in Form No. 11-A was filed by the firm on May 18, 1972, for the assessment year 1973-74 along with a deed of partnership. The partnership deed shows that a minor, Sri Sanjai Kumar, was admitted to the benefits of partnership. On the ground that no one consented for such admission on behalf of the minor, the Income-tax Officer refused the registration, which was confirmed in appeal. On further appeal, however, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee and directed the registration to be granted. The Tribunal referred to Clause 7 of the partnership deed which provided that the father and guardian of the minor shall not interfere with the conduct of the business of the firm. The Tribunal...
Prahlad Rai Murali Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)245; [1991]188ITR131(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 22,988 was a speculation loss ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. It deals in oil cakes. For the assessment year 1974-75, it claimed a loss of Rs. 42,931 comprising three items. We are concerned with only one item, namely, the sum of Rs. 22,988 paid to M/s. Arun Industries, Gujarat. The assessee's case was that he entered into a contract with M/s. Arun Industries, Gujarat, for supply of five wagons of khali (oil cakes) but that it could supply only three wagons and not the remaining two wagons. On this account, it was obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 22,988 by way of damages representing the difference of price to M/s. Arun Industries, Gujarat. The Income-tax Officer refused to believethe genuineness of this transaction on the ...
Kumari Saheli (Minor) Vs. Safir UddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ760; I(1991)DMC212
G. Malaviya, J.1. This habeas corpus petition was moved by Km. Saheli in the High Court through her father Zahhoor Ullah Khan on the ground that Saheli was being detained by her maternal uncles Safir Uddin and Sabir Uddin. The notice was issued to them on 14.2.1990 to produce Km. Saheli. Thereafter, after considering the entire matter Hon'ble R.S. Dhavan, J. was pleased to pass the following order in this case on 28.2.1990 :This habeas corpus petition moved at the instance of a father on behalf of his daughter who is ten years old, and in the custody of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, Messrs Safir Uddin and Sabir Uddin, uncles of the child, aforesaid, (by relation mamas). The father seeks custody of the child kept by the uncles without any legal sanction. In so far as the latter aspect is concerned, it is accepted by even the opposite parties that they are acting as guardians without any legal sanction. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court by writ of habeas corpus has been invoked r...
Dinesh Kumar Singh Rathore Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC638
H.C. Mital, J.1. List has been revised but none is present on behalf of the revisionist.2. This revision against the order dated 18-5-89 passed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist husband was admitted on the question of quantum of maintenance. It was further directed that the revisionist would meanwhile deposit the amount due at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and would continue to deposit the same also in future by 10th of every month. It was further ordered that in default of any deposit, the interim order would stand vacated. This order was passed on 16-6-89.3. According to the impugned order dated 18-5-89 the revisionist was directed to deposit Rs. 500/- per month regarding maintenance of his wife and two minor children from the date of the application dated 23-3-87. Hence in accordance with the order dated 16-6-89 the amount due towards maintenance was since 23-3-87 and the revisionist was required to deposit the same at the rate of Rs. 300/- per m...
Mohan Crystal Glass Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cce (A) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)LC608(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Against the order of adjudication made by the Assistant Collector Excise on 22.6.1990 the petitioner says that he has filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 26.9.1990 along with stay petition. The petitioner says that no order has so far been passed on the stay petition. While we cannot say that the authority concerned is guilty of unreasonable delay in passing order on stay application, because the appeal and stay application has been filed recently just before the Dashhara holidays, it is but appropriate that it is disposed of early.2. The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Board circular No. 29/82, which is found referred to in the decision of this Court in Heera Electrodes v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Rampur : 1987(32)ELT647(All) . This circular seems to say that recovery proceedings are not to be resorted to for a period of four months from the date of receipt of communication of the order. We do not know whether the said ci...
Ghai Ice-cream (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: 1991(36)LC240(Allahabad)
1. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, Excise the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 21.9.1990 along with stay petition. The petitioner says that no order has been passed thereon till today. We cannot say that the authority is guilty of unreasonable delay in passing order on stay petition. In the circumstances however, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate if the orders are passed on the stay petition at an early date. Accordingly it is directed that the appellate authority shall dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Pending disposal of stay petition the recovery of disputed tax shall remain stay. It is made clear that if the appeal arid stay petition have not been filed on 21.9.1990 as alleged or in case the' petitioner docs not produce the certified copy of this order before the appe...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ910; I(1991)DMC1
K.K. Chaubey, J.1. Sarvsri Rakesh Kumar, Kamlesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar sons of Sri Ram Abhilash Dubey who are accused in S.T. No. 332 of 1989 (Crime No. 130 of 1985) under Sections 302/498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have filed the above application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet No. 155,in the above crime case.2. Smt. Sudhra Devi, wife of Ram Abhilash Dubey, Smt. Manju Shree, wife of Vinod Kumar Dubey and Vinod Kumar Dubey alias Suresh Dubey son of Sri Ram Abhilash Dubey, who are also accused in S.T. No. 332 of 1989 have filed the above connected criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid charge-sheet in the said crime number.3. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 772 of 1990 Hon'ble S.I. Jafri, J. stayed further proceedings in S.T. No. 332 of 1989 pending in the Court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 19-1-1990. By t...
Aswani Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All62
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J.1. This writ petition has been referred to Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court since it was of the opinion that an earlier decision of a Division Bench reported in Gulshan Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. Muzaffarnagar v. State of U.P. (1988 (1) AWC 112) requires reconsideration.2. The petitioner, a manufacturer of cement, who purchases hard coke as one of his raw materials, is questioning the validity of a circular letter dated 19-9-1985 issued by the Government of U.P. prays for a direction restraining the respondents (State of U.P. and its officers) from interfering with its right to sell and transport rejected coal and coke.3. Coal is an essential commodity, governed by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In 1977, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) in exercise of the power conferred upon him by S. 3 of the Act. Cl. 2 of this Order defines certain expressions occurring ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi Vs. Jagjit Singh and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ690; AIR1991All84
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of Sri Ram Ji Lal, Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in Motor Accident Claim No. 22 of 1982 Jagjeet Singh v. State of U.P., and others.2. Brief facts giving rise to the above noted appeals are that on 20-1-1982 when Jagjeet Singh claimant was travelling by bus No. UTB 6637 of Banda Depot from Banda to Lucknow via Kanpur, the bus met with an accident, at about 8.30 a.m. when it had left Banda at about 6.15 a.m. It collided with a Sheesham tree and had fallen in a ditch. According to the claimant the bus was carrying a large number of passengers and was crowded one. The tyres of the bus were worn-out and the same could not bear the load of the over-crowded bus and the tyre got burst leading to the accident which caused severe injuries and fracture to the claimant. The claimant remained confined for more than five months and suffered mental and physical agony for which he claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a sum...
Dhirendra Mohan Gupta and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)247; [1991]188ITR19(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J.1. Common questions of law are raised in these income-tax references and writ petitions. They can be, therefore, disposed of under a common order.2. There was a partnership firm in the name of Jagaran Publication, Kanpur, consisting of seven partners. Five of them, who are the petitioners/assessees in these matters, are Hindu undivided families. These Hindu undivided families were represented by their respective kartas in the aforesaid partnership, firm. According to the deed of partnership, the shares of all the seven partners were equal. However, the kartas of five assessees/petitioners were provided with salary as mentioned in the appropriate statement of case. In the assessment of these Hindu undivided families, a question arose whether the salary so received by the karta should be included in the share income of the Hindu undivided family or should be assessed as the separate individual income of the karta. The Income-tax Officer included the salary income in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »