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.
Km. Vandana Tiwari Vs. the Allahabad University, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All250; (1991)1UPLBEC441
ORDER1. The question involved in the present writ petition is regarding the right of student having completed graduation in two years degree course, to get admission for doing Post Graduation in University of Allahabad. The present petitioner passed her B.Sc. final examination from University of Kashmir which is still having two years degree course. Father of petitioner is employed as an Army Officer and he was posted in State of Jammu & Kashmir in peace station and so the petitioner could live with her father and complete her graduation from the aforesaid University. However father of petitioner was subsequently transferred to field area. Consequently he could not keep his family with him and the petitioner was compelled to shift to Allahabad (petitioners home district). The petitioner's result for the B.Sc. final examination was declared on 29th May, 1989 and then she approached the authorities of the respondent No. I for seeking admission in Post Graduation course.2. It is relevant ...
Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2976
H.C. Mital, J.1. Ramesh, Ram Gopal and Ravi Shanker have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23-12-1978 passed by Sri B.B.S. Chaudhary, the then Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, convicting appellant Ramesh Under Section 302, IPC simpliciter and the remaining two Ram Gopal and Ravi Shanker Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing all the three appellants to life imprisonment.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that there was a water channel, going through the fields of appellant Ravi Shanker and Ramesh. Ramesh is son of Ram Gopal. They closed the water channel. The deceased Sardar Singh along with Kali Charan and Siduhoo Singh were digging it in the evening prior to the occurrence. The appellant Ramesh and Ravi Shanker reached there and intervened and got it stopped and left saying that they would teach them a lesson. On 21st October, 1976 at about 8-30 a.m. the deceased Sardar Singh and Raja Singh were called at the Chabutra of Bhagwan Lod...
Kakar Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC294; 1991LC36(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT438(All)
ORDERV.N. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the orders dated 28th April, 1980 and 30th June, 1979, passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad respectively. The petitioners have also prayed for suitable writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from realising the excise duty on the formed coal briquettes and formed coke briquettes from the petitioners under Entry No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Act and also for directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- paid by the petitioners as excise duty under Entry No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Act. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the excise duty as and when realised by them in future after 21st June, 1979.2. The petitioners have alleged that petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the...
Gorakhpur Development Authority Gorakhpur Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All241
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddv, C.J.A common question arises in this bunch of writ petitions. It is whether the company or the authority for whose benefit a land is being acquired by the Government is entitled to apply for impleading itself in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether it can be so impleaded by the civil court.2. At the instance of the writ petitioner, the Gorakhpur Development Authority,Gorakhpur, the Government notified certain lands in village Rampur and other villages under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings were accordingly taken and award passed. Possession of the land was also taken and delivered to the Authority. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the Sand applied for making a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act, which was done. One of such reference is L.A. Reference No. 67/87 (concerned in C.M.W.P. No. 22107 of 1987). In this reference, the Gorakhpur...
District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Zila Parishad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas61(All)
A.N. Verma, J. 1. The District Co-operative Bank Ltd. has several branches of the Bank spread over the district of Gorakhpur. The bank is challenging the levy of circumstances and property tax by the Zila Parishad of Gorakhpur on its various branches on the ground that the Zila Parishad is not competent to levy the said tax on each of the branches of the bank. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by a direct decision of this court in the case of Zila Sahkari Bank Lid. v. Zila Parishad [1981] UPLBEC 201. The controversy involved in this case was whether the Zila Parishad is entitled to levy the circumstances and property tax on each of the branches of the bank separately. Relying on an earlier decision of this court in the case of State Bank of India v. Zila Parishad, AIR 1980 AWC 550 ; [1981] UPLBEC 119, the Bench ruled that it was not competent to the Zila Parishad to collect circumstances and property tax through each of the branches of the bank lying ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swaran Jyoti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR471(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the assessee. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that, consistent with the practice followed in previous years, cash subsidies should be taxed in the year in which they were received. The Tribunal has also noted that the assessee had neither asked for a change in that system for the relevant assessment year nor was any change ordered by the Income-tax Officer.2. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs....
K.N. Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(All)170; [1991]189ITR769b(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition (No. 387 of 1980) is directed against a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment order dated September 21, 1978, relating to the assessment year 1975-76 be not revised.2. The impugned show-cause notice recites the following facts :For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessment in the case of the petitioner herein was made by the Income-tax Officer on September 21, 1978, on a total income of Rs. 13,08,902. From the records maintained in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Agra, the Commissioner found that the petitioner was a partner in the partnership firm, Shiv Narain Parmendra Narain, Ranghat, Aligarh, with a share of 50%. The petitioner's contention, however, was that 1/3rd of the income received towards the said share alone must be assessed in his hands and the remaining 2/3rds...
Mahadeo Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC375
V.N. Mehrotra, J.1. The revision has been filed against the judgment dated 3.10.1988 passed by Sri U.C. Tiwari, Special/Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, partly allowing the revision filed by the opposite party No. 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi and directing that maintenance @ Rs. 300/- be paid by the present applicant to the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Nirmala Devi under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date or application under that Section.2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Nirmala Devi moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. sometime in the year 1985 for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month. She asserted that the opposite party, to whom she was married and who has neglected her was earning Rs. 1200/- per month, being on employee in the State Bank of India. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.2.1988 finally disposed of the matter directing the opposite party Sri Mahadeo Singh to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the order dated 6.2.1988 to Smt. Nir...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Prasad Purshotam Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR470(All); [1991]55TAXMAN334(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Art, 1 961, the Tribunal has stated the following question for our opinion :'Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in maintaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 14,088 being interest paid on the credit balance in individual accounts of the partners ?'The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, there were three partners representing their respective Hindu undivided families. Certain amounts were paid to these partners by way of interest and those amounts were claimed by way of deduction. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer relying upon Clause (b) of Section 40 of the Act. On appeal, however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction and this was affirmed on appeal by the Tribunal.2. So far as it is relevant, Section 40(b) reads as follows :'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amoun...
Noor Mohammad and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR550(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the assessee. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there has been only a change in the constitution of the firm on the death of Sri Kuab Ali and in rejecting the assessee's claim that the firm had dissolved on his death ?'2. The relevant facts which appear from the statement of the case are the following. The assessee-partnership firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated September 5, 1966. It consisted of ten partners one of whom was Sri Ruab Ali. Clause 13 of the deed provided that the firm shall not automatically stand dissolved on the death of any of the partners and that it may be continued by the legal heir or heirs of the deceased partner and the surviving partners. Ruab Ali died on June 29, 1970. After his death, his widow joined the firm an...