Allahabad Court April 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.
Committee of Management Sri. V.D. Misra Higher Secondary School Vs. Ad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1906
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by Committee of Management of Sri V. D. Misra Higher Secondary School, Kanpur Nagar, praying that the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate concerned through his order dated 17-1-1990 and also the attachment order concerning the disputed property, dated 17-1-1990 may be quashed. It has further been prayed that the action of the Magistrate in having directed the Supurdagi of the property to be handed over to the District Inspector of Schools and in turn the District Inspector of school's action in transferring the Supurdagi to the opposite party No. 2 Narendra Kumar Sengar be quashed.2. Since counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as supplementary counter-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the parties' Counsel Sri J. N. Tiwari assisted by Sri Rakesh Tiwari for the Committee of Management/applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Jain appearing for the opposite party No. ...
Nand Kishore Agarwal and Co. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1885
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Admittedly the accused applicant is facing trial under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved on the ground that Section 468, Cr. P.C. will be attracted to the facts of the case and, therefore, the trial will be barred by limitation.2. Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the applicant drew the attention of the court to Section 12AA which was brought into statute book by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. Section 11 of the said Act carves out Sections 12A and 12AA in the parent Act i.e. Essential Commodities Act. For ready reference relevant portion of Section 12AA may be quoted :(a) to (d).....................(e) a special court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial:(f) all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisio...
ilam Singh Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All34
ORDER1. Before the executing Court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar an application under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed on 18-9-1985. The judgment-debtor filed a revision petition before the respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed on 3-12-1986. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the said orders of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and wants a command to protect his possession over the land in question.2. The facts may be put in brief compass.The respondent No. 3 is said to have filed aCivil Original Suit No. 140 of 1980 for perrformance of a contract for sale on 9-1-1986and in the alternative had prayed for refund ofthe consideration amount, which wasRs. SOOO/-. The suit was decreed on 25-12-1982 for an amount of Rs. 8000/- with peri-dente lite interest and future interest at therate of 24% and 12% respectively. A sum ofRs. 6,574.75 was allowed as costs. The respondent No. 3 put the decree in execution on2-1-1983 and claimed a...
Bachnu and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2731
S.I. Jafri, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Bachnu, Veer Singh, Rishipal and Chander-impugning their conviction and sentences recorded by Sri D. D. Srivastava, III Addl. Sessions Judge Meerut by means of his judgment and order dated 22-1-1979 in S.T. No. 468 of 1977. Severally their conviction and sentences were--Rishi Pal was convicted under Sections 304 Part II I.P.C., 324/ 34 and 323/34 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, 3 years and one year under the aforementioned Sections of the Penal Code respectively. The remaining appellants namely, Bir Singh, Bachnu and Chander were convicted under Section 323/ 324/34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and two years respectively under the aforementioned Sections of the Penal Code.2. Appellants and the complainant Vijai Pal P.W. 4 both belonged to village Samaspur Surani P. S. Sardhana District Meerut. Ram Pal deceased and his father Brahma Singh had some cultivatory land in the aforesaid villag...
indra Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR608(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated March 23, 1990, and the notice of demand in consequence thereto. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1980-81 and the petitioner has been assessed by the said assessment as a protective measure. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the matter was remanded for fresh assessment to the Income-tax Officer concerned by the appellate authority with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine certain witnesses. The assessment order recites that, in spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioner refused to avail of the same and, ultimately, he came out with a case that he did not want to cross-examine any person. These factual findings of fact recorded in the assessment order are being disputed in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, no such opportunity was ever afforded to him and he had never refused to cross-examine the witnesses. Be that as it may,...
Nayar and Nayar Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cegat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: 1992(43)LC347(Allahabad)
M.M. Lal, J.1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the interim stay order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 28.8.1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, by which he had confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,65,705.65 p. besides a penalty of Rs. 5000/-, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the aforesaid Act. In this appeal, the petitioner filed an application for interim stay. The appellate Tribunal considering the equities for and against the petitioner, granted waiver of the deposit of the aforesaid amount subject to appellants' depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash within 8 weeks of the date of receipt. The petitioner not feeling satisfied with the said order has filed this writ petition.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the lear...
Abdul Wahid and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR583(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, dated March 23, 1990, which is directed against respondent No. 3, Abdul Hafiz. The second prayer for another relief reads, 'to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 not to realise his one-third share of interest paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.'2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has taken a view that the income-tax assessment orders for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86 made in the hands of respondent No. 3 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, accordingly, he has cancelled the said assessment orders with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments for the said years in the light of the discussion made in the impugned order and after affording an opportunity of being heard to respondent No. 3.3. We may ...
Mohammad Azaz and Others Etc. Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All362; (1991)1UPLBEC44
ORDERU.C. Srivastava, J.1. A DivisionBench of this Court finding itself unable to agree with another Division Bench decision in another writ petition, which too was directed against the cancellation of the result of the 1986 examination conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, opposite party No. 1, (for short 'Board'), in these two petitions has referred the following questions for being decided by a larger Bench :(1) Whether the case of Sanjai Srivastavav. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Writ Petn. No. 7396 of 1986 decided on 11-11-1987 at Lucknow Bench was correctly decided? (2) Whether the principle of discrimination laid down in Arvind Kumar Pandey v.Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., 1985 UPLBEC 55 and in the Uma Shanker Dube v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., 1986 UPLBEC 500 can be extended to cases where several students are required to explain in respect of a mathematical equation how their final answer is correct when the int...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.M. Kanodia (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR333(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. These two reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83 have been filed at the instance of the Revenue. In each of these two applications, the applicant has desired that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer the following two common questions to be questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, in taw and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the item as mentioned in annexure BM-67 seized at the time of search and seizure operation was the same as appearing in the assessee's valuation report of May, 1980, and, as such, it stood explained, and whether it is not a case of miscarriage of justice and drawing wrong conclusions from the given facts ?2. Whether, in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the I...
Deoki Nandan Singhania (Aop) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR289(All)
1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By the said order, the Commissioner has set aside the assessments relating to the years 1982-83 to 1985-86 and has directed the Income-tax Officer to frame fresh assessments for the said years in the light of the directions contained in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and in accordance with law.2. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to go in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we do not feel inclined to entertain this writ petition.3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »