Allahabad Court May 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.
Noor Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC349(Allahabad)
1. This writ petition is directed against an interim order passed by the second respondent, releasing the truck on the condition of petitioner's executing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs, 50.000/-.2. The truck of the petitioner was apprehended and it was found containing smuggled goods. It is not disputed that if it is proved that the offence was committed with connivance of the petitioner, the truck would be confiscated. The value of the truck is about Rs. 2,30,000/-. Having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the case, while affirming the condition of executing the bond of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, reduce the amount of bank guarantee from a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- the bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner for getting release of the truck. It is further directed that before releasing the truck in favour of the petitioner Shri Noor Ahmad, the respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the truck is registered in his ...
Har Chandi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All24
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in exercise of powers under S. 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Ceiling Act, whereby the settlement of surplus land in their favour under sub-sec. (3) of S. 27 of the Ceiling Act has been cancelled.2. The impugned order is based on the finding that the settlement of the surplusland in favour of the petitioners was irregular for the following reasons :--(a) that there was no proper proclamation before the settlement of the surplus land took place; (b) that the preferences enumerated under S. 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Z.A. and L.R. Act, were not considered while making the settlement of the surplus land in favour of the petitioners; (c) that for settlement of the surplus land in favour of the petitioners Har Chand...
Chaukas Ram Vs. Sub Area Commander and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ634All; (1990)3UPLBEC1876
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner joined the Indian Army on ApriJ 27, 1968 as a soldier and in January, 1988 he was holding the rank of Havaldar in the Army Medical Corps. During his service, the petitioner claims to have been awarded several medals, i.e. Western Star, San-gram Medal, Independence Medal, Long Service Medal and Himalayan Medals. On January 26, 1988 at about 9.15 p.m. petitioner and two others were stabbed by one of his colleague, namely, Ram Pravesh Shah. Only the petitioner survived as other two succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter, Ram Pravesh Shah was Court Martialled and was ultimately convicted.2. After more than a year, a notice dated April 13, 1989 was given to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice as to why suitable administrative action be not taken against him for the alleged misconduct referred to in the notice. The petitioner submitted his reply and ultimately by an order dated June 13, 1989 the petitione...
Raghuvera and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2735
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 400 of 1989 was filed by Raghuvira and four others against the order dated 17-3-89 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal of the applicants.2. 14-3-1990 was fixed for admission of the revision application. The case was on the list and when none appeared for the applicants even in the revised list, the revision application was dismissed as not pressed.3. The contentions of the applicants are that once an application for revision is filed in the court, the same cannot be dismissed for default as not pressed and the order dated 14-3-1990 was bad in law. On the other hand the contentions of the opposite parties are that once the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the Court has no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.5. It is no doubt true that Section 362 Cr. P.C. debars the court from altering or reviewing ...
Atma Steels Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cce (A) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1990
Reported in: 1992(39)LC14(Allahabad)
1. The only direction sought for in this writ petition is that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act on 5.2.1990 should be disposed of expeditiously. We cannot say that the appellate authority has been guilty of unreasonable delay in disposing of the appeal. The appeal was filed only in the first week of February and we are in the third week of May. The direction sought for cannot be given, since it may 'amount to upsetting the hearing schedule of the appellate authority. The only observation we can make is that the appeal of the petitioner be disposed of expeditiously.2. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Prasad Piarey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR126(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The following four questions were referred to this court in pursuance of a direction of this court under Section 256(2) :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that, after the death of one of the partners of the assessee-firm on September 4, 1973, there was a succession of one firm by another firm under Section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be framed on the basis of the two returns of income filed by the assessee ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not accepting the Department's view that it was a case of a change in the constitution of the firm under Section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and...
Vinod Kumar and Others Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All219; (1990)2UPLBEC866
ORDERS.D.Agarwala, J.1. These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 28/30th August, 1989. In both these petitions, the facts are similar and the same question of law is involved and, as such, both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment. The parties are also agreed that Writ Petition No. 3314 of 1990, Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P., may be taken as the leading case.2. In Writ No. 3314 of 1990, the petitioners are the owners of plots Nos. 66,67,89 and 90, situate in village Gulistanpur, tahsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad. In Writ No. 5541 of 1990, the petitioners are the owners of plots Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 45, 48, 49, 63, 64 and 65, situate in the same village. The petitioners have also challenged the notification issued under S. 4 of the Act in respect of these plots only.3. Writ Petition No. 3314 of 1990 was filed on 12th Feb...
Zila Parishad; Bijnor and Another Vs. Pashu Shav Chhedan Evam Haddi Ch ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All18
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-1990 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants-appellants have preferred-noted appeals.2. There is a dispute between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant-repon-dent No. 2 with regard to licence--Theka for collection of carcass, hides and bones of dead animals. The plaintiff-respondent had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to the Theka and the defendants-appellants have wrongly granted Theka to the defendant-respondent No. 2 in each appeal, therefore, the suits for permanent injunction against the defendants. An application for interim injunction was moved by the plaintiff-respondent which has been granted by the impugned order after hearing the parties. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26-4-1990, the defendants-appellants have preferred the above noted appeals.3. The learned counsel for the appellants has ass...
Bangla Sweet House Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR652(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Three questions are sought to be referred in this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are :'(a) Whether, on the basis of material available on the record, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the power to enhance the sale after relying on CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate : [1964]53ITR225(SC) ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the safes estimated by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the absence of any independent inquiry by any income-tax authority ? (c) Whether the inferences drawn in sales tax proceedings on the basis of survey made in subsequent year in the abnormal circumstances are relevant and conclusive inferences for income-tax proceedings ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it is beyond dispute that the appellate authority does have the power to enhance the tax even in an appeal preferred by the assesse...
Hari Fertilizers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC514(Allahabad)
1. The petitioner has filed a claim for refund on 29.6.1988. Certain particulars were called for in the first instance by the authority which the petitioner supplied. Thereafter, certain further information was called for. The petitioner says, he has supplied the information too. The petitioner's grievance is that even though the period of two years has elapsed, since the filing of the application for refund, no final orders have been passed thereon.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed. In this affidavit the claim for refund has not been denied, but it is stated that process of verification has to be completed. In the circumstances, it is directed that respondent No. 2 shall pass final orders on petitioner's application dated 29.6.1988 according to law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him.3. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction....