Allahabad Court August 1990 Judgments
Budhish Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ808
G. K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1978 passed by Sri R. B. Lal Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Session Trial N o. 240/ M of 1977, convicting and sentencing the appellant Budhish Chandra for life imprisonment for the offence punishable Under Section 302, I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable Under Section 25, Arms Act and the sentences were made to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, has been that in the night between 6th/7th July, 1977 Roshan Lal, his wife and their sons Yograj Bajaj and Jagmohan Lal were sleeping in the court-yard of their first floor quarter No. 465-A, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur and at about 2-30 a.m.Yograj and his younger brother Jagmohan Lal woke up from sleep due to the report of the fire arm shot and saw in the light of the street electric pole Budhish Chandra appellant, who is the real brother-in-law (Sala) of Yograj climbing on the wall. It is alleged that their...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Tarun Kumar Chhabra Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All99; (1990)2UPLBEC1330
ORDER1. In pursuance of advertisement issued by U.P. Avas Evarn Vikas Parishad Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) the petitioners of these writ petitions got themselves registered with the Parishad after paying registration fee etc. for purchasing various types of houses to be constructed by the Parishad under various schemes such as self financing scheme, hire-purchase scheme etc. At the time of registration the petitioners were given brochure containing terms and conditions for purchasing houses under various schemes of the Parishad to which they agreed by consent letters.Some of these terms and conditions are as follows :--(i) Cost of the houses as shown is only approximate and it may increase or decrease after construction of the houses. (ii) If the payment is not made within the specified period the defaulter is liable to pay 18% additional interest. (iii) If there is default in making the payment for a period of six months, the registration shall come to an end aut...
Tag this Judgment!Udai Pratap Singh Vs. Collector, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All104
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J.1. In these two writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, a common question of law and fact arises for decision as to whether the agreement executed between the petitioners and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation can be termed as a lease or the said agreement can be treated only as a licence. Petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved by the orders of the Collectors of their respective district issuing recovery certificates for recovery of the balance of the stamp duty on the basis that the agreement executed between the petitioners and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is a lease and the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp duty required to be paid for executing the lease deed. Petitioners challenged the recovery certificates mainly on the ground that the agreement executed between the petitioners and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is only a licence on which no stamp duty is required to be paid. Petitioners had exe...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT225(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. In all these matters the question in issue to classification of goods produced by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are dutiable under Chapter 39 of VIII Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, whereas, according to the department, they are dutiable under Chapter 34.39 of the said Schedule. It is brought to our notice that Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the contention...by the petitioners in a similar matter. It is also brought to our notice that a number of High Courts have granted interim orders in writ petitions where identical questions were raised. On the other hand, it is contended by Shri V.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government that by virtue of the interim order, the Government is suffering substantial financial loss which it may not be able to recover in the cases of dismissal of the writ petitions and the rejection of the petitioners' case as the case may be.2. Ordinarily speaking, classification is a matter...
Tag this Judgment!Chattar Mohan Singh Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Rural) Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All111
ORDER1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector (Rural), Allahabad dated 1-1-1982 cancelling the fire arm licence together with the order of affirmation dated 2-3-1982 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahbad, and seeking the relief for quashing the same.2. Brief facts leading to the controversy,as set out in the petition, are --(i) that the petitioner, who is permanent resident of village Kanihar, P.S. Mau, District Banda, started living in village Parwejabad, P. S. Bara, District Allahabad, involving himself in Thekedari work of railway coal at Jasra, Allahabad, and also in the business of Tendu leaves. Realising the need of a fire arm for his protection, he, in the year 1974-75, applied in the prescribed form for the grant of a licence for a single barrel gun wherein he clearly mentioned his present address of village Parwejabad, District A...
Tag this Judgment!Gulati Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chandra, Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(All)79; [1991]187ITR582(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a notice under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1974-75. An assessment order with respect to the said assessment year was made on February 25, 1977. The impugned notice was given on March 6, 1979, and it is now beyond dispute that it is relatable to Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the said notice on the ground that the said notice is exclusively based upon the objections of the audit party and that the objections or report of an audit party, cannot constitute 'information' within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act.2. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the internal audit party pointed out certain facts and that the 'same have been considered while the notice under section 148/147(b) was issued'. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the facts pointed out by the audit party can...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR559(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. It is evident from the impugned order dated May 21, 1990, and even according to the petitioner, that a regular assessment has been made in this case. Once a regular assessment has been made, it would be unnecessary to go into the validity or otherwise of the summary assessment order under Section 132(5) of the Act. It is, however, open to the petitioner to apply for the return of the seized articles subject to, and in accordance with, the regular assessment order.2. It shall also be open to the petitioner to deposit the amount equal to their value towards the tax liability of Mathura Prasad Jagdish Prasad and ask for return of those goods.3. It shall also be open to the petitioner to apply for impleading himself in the appeal preferred by Mathura Prasad Jagdish Prasad against the order of assessment in their case and if any such application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.4. With the above observations, the writ petition is dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR515(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking the following five questions to be stated under Section 256(2) of the Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Kashmir Traders, Luck-now, was not a genuine party and that it never existed as a tenant and as such the purchase of scrap from this party was bogus, non-genuine and fake ? 2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deciding the issue one way or the other without considering the additional evidence which was brought on record as early as in the first appellate proceedings ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's approach to treat the purchases genuine vis-a-vis co-relation of purchases of scrap with reference to percentage of burning loss is misconceived and warranted inf...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR543(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reedy, C.J.1. By this application, the assessee is requesting this court to state the following five questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had any valid material in reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax's order and sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,18,799 as income of the assessee-company assessable for the assessment year under reference ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any legal basis for the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee-company had been paid Rs. 1,18,799 as on money by amount (sic) is to be assessed in the hands of the company as its income ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in refusing the assessee's right to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied on for making the addition of Rs. 1,18,799 and in not follow...
Tag this Judgment!Sonpal and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1597
R.K. Saksena, J.1. Four persons, namely Ram Swarup, Mallan, Son Pal and Raj Pal were tried for committing the offence of attempted murder and 'voluntarily causing hurt' respectively punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, each read with Section 34 thereof. The trial ended in acquittal of Ram Swarup and Mallan of all the charges. Son Pal (appellant) was, however, convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and Raj Pal (appellant) was found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. They were also acquitted on other charges, per judgment and order dated the 21st of February, 1979 passed by Shri H. P. Pathak, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1977.2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »