Allahabad Court April 1990 Judgments
Sanjai Kumar Singh and Another Vs. Vice-chandcellor, Purvanchal Univer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All21; (1990)3UPLBEC1849
ORDERG.K. Mathur, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the quashing of 'office order' dt. 2nd March, 1989 of Principal, Udai Pratap College, Varanasi and the communication dated 7th March, 1989 issued on its basis by the Head of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Udai Pratap College, Varanasi, to the effect that it was not possible for the department to allow the petitioners to study in the classes as their admission was not in order and had not been entertained by the Principal. The petitioners have further prayed to issue a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the studies and with the appearing of the petitioners in M.Sc. (Ag.) 1st year examination of 1988-89.2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. The petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.3. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, to which Udai Pratap College, Varanasi (hereinafter to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki Nath Pandey and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All143; (1990)1UPLBEC542
ORDERV. N. Khare, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law in this writ petition and in the connected writ petitions are involved, we propose to decide these writ petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4215 of 1990 is an Advocate and was appointed as a District Government Counsel (Civil), Basti on 7-4-1983 for a period of one year. His appointment as District Government Counsel (Civil) Basti is alleged to have been extended from time to time, the last extension being for a period from 1-7-1989 to 30-6-1992.3. Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 4392 of 1990 is an Association duly registered with the Registrar of Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P. Lucknow-W, known as U.P. Government Counsel (Criminal) Welfare Association, Meerut Branch, District Courts, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as an 'Association'). The Association is said to be a State Level Organisation of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors ap-pointed under Section 24 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Dutt Arya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR350(All)
1. Having heard counsel for the petitioner-assessee and learned standing counsel for the Revenue, we direct the Tribunal to state the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 266(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether there was any material or evidence on record to justify the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in law that the assessee was liable to be taxed on Rs. 2,382 being the value of the ornaments found in the search conducted by the Customs Authorities ?'2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee says that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are included in question No. 3. Whatever that may be, the only question referred is question No. 3.3. The application is rejected, so far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.4. Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR682(All)
1. By this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the assessee is requesting this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court. :'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the business activities carried on by Shri Ashok Kumar Baranwal and Smt. Kamla Devi represented the activities of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the inclusions of investments in the business activities that had admittedly been carried on by Shri Ashok Kumar Baranwal and Smt. Kamla Devi individually, without any help and assistance of the Hindu undivided family funds, in the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? 3. Whether the findings given by the Tribunal with regard to the inclusion of business assets belonging to Shri Ashok Kumar Baranwal and Smt. Kamla Devi are not vitiated in law as having been arrived at without considering the relevant material and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vindhya Vasini Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR253(All)
ORDER--Cannot be referred.HELD:Proceedings pertain to the asst. year 1974-75 and the question raised pertains to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The Tribunal therefore, rightly refused to go into the aspect, it does not really arise from the order of the Tribunal. Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Reference--QUESTION OF FACT--Appeal (Tribunal)--Tribunal whether justified in holding that after remand, scope of enquiry is limitedHELD:It is clear from the order of the first appellate authority that the remand to the ITO was limited only to one issue, namely to determine what was the amount received by the assessee from his relatives, after considering such evidence as the appellant may place before it. In view of such limited remand, the ITO and the appellate authority on appeal had no power to go into other questions or enlarge the scope of proceedings/appeal.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Reference--QUESTION NOT ARISING OUT OF TRIBUNAL'S ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidhya Ply and Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC203; 1990LC168(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT231(All)
ORDERR.K. Gulati, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The only relief sought in this writ petition is that a writ or order in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to press for the recovery of demand which is disputed in the appeal pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi till the petitioner's application under the proviso to Section 35F is not decided by the appellate authority.2. It appears that being aggrieved by the notice/order dated 30th November, 1989 the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the act) before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accompanied by an application under the proviso to the said section for dis pensing with the condition of pre-deposit of dues as required under Section 35F aforesaid. The proviso reads as under:'Provided that ...
Tag this Judgment!Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: 1991LC622(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT233(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. We have beard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The only relief sought in this writ petition is that a writ or order in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to press for the recovery of demand which is disputed in the appeal pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi till the petitioner's application under the proviso to Section 35F is not decided by the appellate authority.2. It appears that being aggrieved by the notice order dated 14-6-1988 the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accompanied by an application under the proviso to the said section for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of dues as required under Section 35F aforesaid. The proviso reads as under:'Provided that where in any pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Kumari Vs. Lalit Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC568
S.R. Bhargava, J.1. Both these applications relate to Crl. Misc. Application No. 7226 of 1989 and contain the prayer for setting aside the order dated 3rd August, 1989 passed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 7226 of 1989 directing Opp. parties No. 1, Lalit Kumar, his brothers, Jagdish Prasad and Audesh, Smt. Bhagwan Dei wife of Audesh, Smt. Rajo wife of Jagdish Prasad and Ramji Lal to appear before the Magistrate concerned through Counsel and further' directing that they shall not be compelled to appear in person unless they are required for their statements or for Judgment or if their Counsel withdraws.2. Facts giving rise to the present application are that on 26th July, 1977, Smt. Sita Kumari was married with Lalit Kumar before the Marriage Officer under Special Marriage Act. Wedlock was blessed' with a son. But unfortunately their relations became estranged and they have been living separately. Smt. Sita Kumari has been working at a Health Centre and living in District Saharanpur. Lal...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Plywood Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. and Collector ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC536(Allahabad)
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that during the pendency of appeal an application for dispensation of the deposit at contemplated under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has also been made and is still pending, but the opposition parties have issued the demand notice dated 18th April, 1990, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to this writ petition. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of the present case we find it expedient in the interest of justice and accordingly direct the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad, respondent No. 4, to dispose of the said application of the petitioner moved under the proviso to Section 35F of the aforesaid Act within a period of one month from today.2. Meanwhile for a period of one month the operation of the impugned demand notice dated 18.4.1990 shall remain stayed.3. The petition is dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Dunna Lal and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ647All
S.I. Jafri, J. 1. Dunna Lal appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C, under Section 452 I.P.C., under Section 323/34 and under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentence of 2 years R.I., one years R.I., six months R.O. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 respectively under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code recorded by Sri D.L. Soni, District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in S.T. No. 6 of 1986. Narendra Lal, Sahukar Lal and K. Makhan Lal appellants were also convicted by the trial court under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C., 452 and 323/34 I.P.C 323 I.P.C., but instead of giving them jail sentence, the trial court had extended them the benefit of the Probation of First Offenders Act, on their furnishing two sureties of Rs. 2,000 each and a personal bond in the like amount for remaining on good conduct for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the trial court. Alongwith the appellants, Smt. Shankari Devi the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »