Allahabad Court August 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.
Dori and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3139
Palok Basu, J.1. This appeal has been filed by two brothers Dori and Kamal Singh. These two and two others, namely, Babu Kumhar and Narain Singh were accused in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1983. Babu Kumhar and Narain Singh remained absconders, as such their trial could not proceed. The appellants have been convicted Under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and 323/34, IPC relating to the causing of death of Ganga Ram and causing injuries to Ram Roop, P.W. 2 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and 1 year R.I. each. The Charge Under Section 394, IPC has been held not proved.2. According to the prosecution story, an incident happened on 12-11-1982 around 1 p.m. in village Khadiha P.S. Khadauli district Agra, in which the aforesaid four accused were named as having come to the fields in the possession of the prosecution side, well armed. Dori, Kamal Singh and Babu Kumhar were allegedly carrying a fire-arms (Guns) while Narain Singh was armed with lathi. It is said that in the fields of the said vil...
i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT208(All)
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes and smoking tobaccos of diverse kind throughout India. It owns five factories in the country. The factories are located at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, Kidderpore in the State of West Bengal, Munger in the State of Bihar, Parel in the State of Maharashtra and Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. During the period 1st October, 1975 to 28th February, 1983 cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner-company were subjected to excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. There was controversy between the petitioner-company and the Excise Department in regard to interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. It was held by some courts that value should be determined for the purposes of excise duty on the basis of the manufacturing co...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Munni Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC123
G.D. Dube, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order of Second Additional Sessions Judge Mathura allowing the revision of opposite party setting aside the order of the lower court and thereby allowing the application of the opposite party under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the maintenance allowance of Rs. 250/- per month to the opposite party from the date of the order of the lower court i.e 8-8-1984.2. It is an admitted case that the opposite party was married with revisionist about 10 years before the application moved before lower court under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The only allegation against the revisionist is that he has developed illicit connection with his daughter-in-law who came in the family after marriage with his son Shiv Kumar about 7 months before from the date of application. It was urged that when the opposite-party objected she was turned out of the house and the revisionist is not maintaining her. It was urged that the revi...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector, C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: 1990LC366(Allahabad); 1991(55)ELT164(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Common questions have been raised in these writ petitions. It would be sufficient to refer to the prayer made in writ petition No. 122 of 1980. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Torches, Miniature bulbs and Electric Batteries (Dry). As required by Rules the petitioner has been submitting price lists for approval to the appropriate authority. In that connection a question arose which expenses ought to be included in the 'whole-sale cash price' and which should not be. It is this dispute which is ventilated in these writ petitions.2. In our opinion, the writ petition is not the proper remedy for the said purpose. The Act itself provides a remedy in case the petitioner is aggrieved with the orders of the appropriate authority in the matter of approval of price list. It is also brought to our notice that after the filing of these writ petitions, many developments have taken place and that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyres, pr...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. Collector (Appeals) Central Exci ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC367(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard learned standing counsel for the Central Government. 2. Against the orders of the Assistant Collector Excise, rejecting the application for refund, the petitioner says, he filed an appeal before the Collector (Excise) along with stay application on 8.6.1990. The petitioner says that so far no orders have been passed on the stay application. Indeed, we are told that the Collector (Appeals) at Allahabad is not now functioning and that the Delhi Officer is Incharge of the said post. Be that as it may, the stay application shall be disposed of by the appropriate authority within six weeks from the production of a copy of this order before it. A copy of this order shall be produced before the authority concerned within one week.3. For a period of two months from today the impugned recovery proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 22/23.5.1990, communicated on 9/10.7.1990, shall remain stayed.4. If the stay application is not disposed of within the time, sp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›