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. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR80(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee's claim regarding extra shift allowance was valid ?'2. The assessee is a spinning and weaving mill. For the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, it claimed extra shift allowance on its machines. It claimed that this allowance ought to be allowed with reference to the number of days the concern worked extra shift and not with reference to the exact number of days on which the machines had worked extra shift. The Income-tax Officer did not agree. He calculated the extra shift allowance on the machines purchased during the year under consideration on the basis of the number of days these machines had really worked extra shift. The machines which the assessee owned at the beginning of the previous years were presume...
Balram Singh Yadava and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ903
A.N. Varma, J.1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was presented initially on behalf of five individuals. Subsequently, two petitioners withdrew from the array of petitioners and, as a result, upon a motion made in that behalf by their counsel, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on their behalf. That left only three petitioners out of whom Raghuvir Singh has, according to the information conveyed to the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate, since been released. Thus, only two petitioners, namely, Darshan Singh Yadav and Hargovind Singh Yadav remain in the field.1A. At the outset we may mention that Sri P.P. Yadav, learned counsel representing these two petitioners conceded that in this petition neither the orders of remand nor the extension thereof passed from time to time by the Judicial Magistrate Under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. taking them in judicial custody are being challenged. The submission in the main was that even if their detention was initially val...
Naqli and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2468
B.P. Singh, J.1. Naqli and his son Vijai Pal have appealed against the judgment and order dated 16th May, 1986, passed by Special Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 316 of 1983 Under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act by which Naqli was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and to a term of one year's R.I. for the offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, while Vijai Pal was convicted for the offence Under Section 323, IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. A fine of Rs. 200/- also imposed upon the appellant Naqli for the offence Under Section 302, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution, as was unfolded in the evidence of Bhopal Singh and other witnesses, may briefly be stated as follows: 3. Bhopal Singh, P.W. 1, son of Sukhbir Singh, is a resident of village Gyana Majra P. S. Charthawal. Accused Naqli and Vijai Pal also reside in the same village. Prior to the occurrence of this case, Bhopal Singh'...
Anandeshwar Pande Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC139; 1991(52)ELT367(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-1988 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur. Under this order, the Collector has overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and decided to proceed with the show cause notice dated 13-8-1987. A few facts need to be stated for a proper appreciation of the question arising herein.2. On 13-8-1987 the said notice was issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to:(1) Lohia Machines Ltd. (Scooter unit),(2) Shri L. K. Singhania, President of the Company.(3) Shri Sanjeev Shriya, Director of the Company.and(4) Shri A. Pandey, Authorised signatory, of the Company (petitioner).Calling upon them to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Rules 173Q(1)(d) and 198 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was a composite notice mentioning various contraventions committed by the Company. One of the main allegations in the show cause notice is that the company had wilfully ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jagjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC520
K.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 Ors.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/- andasumof Rs. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›