Allahabad Court January 1991 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Authority ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All51
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 3-9-1987 of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, holding that in view of subsection (1) of S. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), permit can be issued to the corporation for a period of three years, which is liable to be renewed on payment of permit/renewal fees. The challenge of the corporation is on the ground that in view of the provisions of S. 68-F(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 10(4)(5) of the U. P. State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) framed under S. 68-I, permits of the corporation are to remain valid without renewal till the scheme remains in force. It is further argued that only such fees in respect of application for a permit can be charged from the corporation, which has been prescribed under Ru...
Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All114
ORDER1. S. 115, C.P.C. has been substituted altogether by U.P. Amendmerit Act No. XXXI of 1978 with effect from 1-8-1978. The substituted provision reads as follows : '115. Revision.-- The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, including such suits or other proceedings instituted before August 1, 1978, and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and such subordinate court appears - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the High Court or the District Co...
Ram Singh Verma Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR64(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By these two applications filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Tribunal to state the following questions in respect of the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86. The questions relating to the assessment year 1983-84 are :'1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 49,725 on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house property despite the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee, an old man of 80 years doing business for past several years, ought to be given some benefit for past savings was yet given no benefit ? 2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in discarding the valuation report of the assessee's valuer and accepting the valuation report of the Department Valuation Cell without proof ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustain...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR52(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated May 28, 1987, and certain other subsequent orders.2. Briefly, the facts relevant are the following : a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 1972-73 and an assessment made. Against the assessment so made, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate order was received by the petitioner on September 15, 1983. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before November 14, 1983. The petitioner, however, despatched his appeal papers by post on November 11, 1983 which were received by the Tribunal on November 24, 1983. In other words, the appeal was barred by seven days.3. On April 24, 1986, the Tribunal issued a notice to the petitioner informing him that his appeal was barred by time. Thereupon,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baldeo Ram Salig Ram Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(All)100; [1991]188ITR470(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that it was mandatory on the part of the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee failed to claim such deduction in the returns filed for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73 or during the course of the assessment proceedings ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that there was an obvious mistake which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1969-70 to 1972-73. On the basis of the returns filed by the assessee, assessments were made for all these four years on August 3, ...
V. Kothari and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1606
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications arise out of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 Sudhir Chopra numbered as Complaint Case No. 2617/ 89 Under Section 420/ 406/120-B, IPC. of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, against the 11 accused, the applicant V. Kothari and M/s. Sunds Defibrator AB, being accused No. 1 and 11 respectively. In both the cases State of U.P. and Sudhir Chopra are opposite parties No. 1 and 2 respectively. Since these two applications relate to the same complainant case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Sudhir Chopra claimed himself to be the Vice President of a Company known as Best Boards Limited having its factory at Gajraula, Police Station Gajraula District Moradabad, U.P. The allegations in the complaint in short are that M/s Sunds Defibrator AB is a company with its registered office at Sweden. This company works in India through its representatives such as accused Nos. 4 to 10...
Khushali (from Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3244
1. Khushali has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC to life imprisonment passed by Sri V. V. Singh, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh by his judgment dated 6-10-1979.2. Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant Khushali was wanted in a dacoity case and he was absconding, hence under Section 87/88, Cr. P.C. his belongings were attached and given in the Supurdgi of deceased Narain who was a distant uncle of appellant Khushali. Smt. Jaidevi wife of Teja, after her husband's death she had developed illicit intimacy with Narain deceased, who also used to cultivate the land of Smt. Jaidevi. Hence Khushali bore ill will towards the deceased which was further bolstered when his belongings after attachment were taken in his supurdgi by Narain deceased. It is said that the appellant had sent threats to Narain to return his goods to him, otherwise he would teach him a lesson. The incident is alleged to have taken place o...
Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR57(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that though his account books were seized under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as far back as February 6, 1986, the account books have not so far been returned to him. He says that no orders were passed extending the period of retention as contemplated by Sub-section (8) of Section 132. He has invited our attention to a letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Meerut, dated July 13, 1988, addressed to the petitioner, which refers to an order of the Commissioner dated March 29, 1988, by which the time of retention was said to have extended.2. Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that there was no similar order in between, i.e., between February 6, 1986, and March 29, 1988. With a view to ascertain the correct state of facts, time was given to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit but, in spite of giving repeated opportunities, no counter-affidavit has been file...
Nagar Swasth Adhikari Vs. Rajju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3268
G.D. Dube, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Nagar Swasth Adhikari, Agra against the judgment and order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, acquitting the respondent of the charges Under Section 7/16 of thet Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. 450 grams of Dalchini is said to have been taken as a sample from the shop of the accused-respondent. The sample was divided into three equal parts. Each part was sealed and labeled in separate container. One part was given to respondent and second was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow. The public analyst reported that Dalchini sample was adulterated. A complaint was filed against the respondent. At the trial the respondent had pleaded not guilty of the charges. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the respondent on solitary technical ground that Rule 22 of Rules under the Act was not complied. According to the lower court the Dalchini was not a spice. It was a condiment and...
Ram Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ909
1. Ram Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment, passed by Sri O.P. Jain, V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 19-4-1984.2. The appellant Ram Singh, co-accused Gajendra Singh as well a deceased Ram Swaroop were residents of Village Sultanpur, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri. According to the prosecution a month prior to the occurrence Ram Singh -- appellant and his nephew Gajendra Singh had taken forcibly water of the tube-well in their field through the field of Ram Swaroop, the deceased, and on latter's protests they had threatened him with dire consequences. The occurrence in question had taken place on 23-12-1982 at about 7 p.m. when the deceased had already finished his evening meals, while his wife Smt. Margsri (P.W. 2) was serving meals to the two sons of the deceased. A kerosene Dibbi was burning nearby. Ram Singh appellant along with co-accused Gajendra Singh and two others arrived ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »