Allahabad Court April 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.
Asha Ram Yadav Vs. Dt. Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ44All
P.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Asha Ram Yadav was appointed as Entertainment Tax Inspector, in the year 1983 by the Entertainment Tax Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow. Subsequently, he was duly selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission in a competitive examination against permanent and substantive vacancy of Entertainment Tax Inspector. Thereafter, he was on probation for a period of two years. On completion of the aforesaid probation period he was confirmed on the post of Entertainment Tax Inspector in the year 1985. He was last posted as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector in District Fatehpur. By the impugned order dated November 5, 1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, he, while working as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector, was attached to the office and was directed not to check or inspect cinemas. According to the petitioner the impugned order is arbitrary and has put the petitioner in an embarrassing position as he is not being allowed to discharge the duties assigne...
Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. Smt. Ram Rati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC310
S.R. Bhargava, J.1. This criminal revision gives rise to important question regarding limitation in enforcement of maintenance order passed under Section 488 of the Old Criminal Procedure Code.2. Facts are that on 31st July, 1972 City Magistrate, Meerut granted maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month w.e.f. 18th December, 1981 to the wife Smt. Ram Rati from her husband Brij Mohan Sharma. This order was challenged in revision before Sessions Judge, Meerut. It was dismissed on 9th January, 1973. On 21st April, 1973 wife moved application before the City Magistrate for the enforcement of the maintenance order. Husband preferred revision in High Court and the operation of the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate was stayed. The City Magistrate noted the stay order and consigned the application for the enforcement. It was only on 2nd February 1977 that the High Court dismissed the revision preferred by the husband and discharged the stay order.3. It need not be forgotten that maintenance pr...
State of U.P. and Another Vs. Surendra Nath and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All127
ORDERG. D. Dube, J. 1. An application under S. 5 of Limitation Act has been moved by the State of U.P. to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal.2. The impugned judgment and award was given by the VI Additional District Judge on 27-2-1989. The appeal was filed on 20-9-1989 with a court-fee of Rs. 10/- only. There was a deficiency of Rs. 54,885/-. The Stamp Reporter had reported on 19-9-89 that the appeal was beyond time by 109 days on that date.3. In order to explain the delay the clerk of Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred SLAO for brief), Azamgarh has stated in his affidavit that after receipt of the copy of the judgment and decree the Collector sent the papers to the State Government, which gave its direction on 1-7-1989 for filing appeal. It was received in the officer of SLAO on 31-7-1989. The clerk of SLAO proceeded to Allahabad on 2-8-1989 and made inquiries from the office of the Standing Counsel about the expenses. After making the inquiries the...
Gyan Prakash Chaurasia and Others Vs. Bans NaraIn Rai and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All266
ORDER1. This is a defendant's revision in a suit filed by the plaintiff opposite parties I to 5 under S. 92 of the Civil P.C., 1908 (for short the Code), against the applicants, the defendants, who were vendees of the trust properties. The relief sought in the suit was that the defendant No. 1 is the Sarbarakar of the temple named Mahavir Ji containing idol of Ram Janki and Laxman and also a Sheo temple. The defendant No. 1 Ram Kar Pandey, opposite party No. 6 was the Sarbarakar that he was mismanaging theproperty as he was not making arrangement for the worship and prayer in the temple, rather he has transferred a sizeable portion of the property dedicated to the temple to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 the present applicants, and thus he has mismanaged the trust properties. The defendant No. 1, the alleged Sarbarakar did not file any objection in the proceedings under S. 92 of the Code, rather opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, the present applicants contested the application denying that there was...
K.P. Roy, Income-tax Officer Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR856(All)
U.K. Verma, J. 1. These are three Criminal Appeals Nos. 439 of 1979, 440 of 1979 and 441 of 1979 arising out of the order of Sri R.B. Lal, Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated June 3, 1978, wherehy he had dismissed the complaints of the Income-tax Officer against Moti Lal and Ham Niwas, under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the income-tax authorities raided the firm of Moti Lal and Ham Niwas on May 18, 1971. The search and seizure continued on May 19, 1971, also. The account books of the firm were taken away and the respondents were required by notices under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act to submit their returns within 30 days of the service of the notices. The notices were served on May 25, 1971. The respondent on June 21, 1971, sent an application for one month's time to file the return commencing from the date of return of the account books by the Income-tax Department. The Income-tax Officer extended the time to file the return ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sukh Lal Ice Cold Storage Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR562(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 256,of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra. The question proposed in the application reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in quashing the assessment order holding that issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was illegal as the reasons for issue of the said notice were not on record ?'It appears that the assossee had a filed return for the assessment year 1982-83 which was not found to be a return in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer required the assessce to amend the return and to rectify the defects. As this was not done, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued to bring to lax the income of the year in question. Against the assessment order passed in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee went up in appeal. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radhey Shyam Shyam Sunder Jaiswal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(All)14; [1992]197ITR31(All); [1992]60TAXMAN51(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions : ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that the assessee has discharged the onus under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty totally?' 2. The assessment year is 1969-70. The respondent-assessee is a parlnership firm engaged in excise business. It filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 1,172. At the time of the hearing, it filed a revised return disclosing an income of Rs. 1,922. The Income-tax Officer, however, by his assessment order dated October 12, 1970, estimated the income at Rs. 1,15,930 and, after giving certain deductions, he arrived at the net taxable income of Rs. 95,200. He also issued a notice under Sec...
Jhamman and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2970
U.K. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Shri L. N. Rai, III, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 21-9-78 in the Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1978 convicting Hem Singh Under Sections 302 simpliciter and 307/323 read with Section 34, I.P.C., Nek Pal Under Section 307 simpliciter and 302/ 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Jhumman and Jai Singh under Sections 302/307/323 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellants Under Section 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, Under Section 307 or 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. have been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and Under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. This part of the prosecution story is uncontroverted that about 5.00 p.m. on 8-10-77 there was a quarrel between Jhumman appellant and the informant Ram Das an...
Abdul Rashid Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3065
K.P. Singh, J.1. The accused-applicant, in revision, named Abdul Rashid, and his son, Shahwaz, were tried for the offence under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.2. On 7-11-1978 the house of Abdul Rashid applicant in revision, situate near Railway Compound, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, was searched by Sri A. N. Tewari along with other police force. Two iron ladders and four tie bars were recovered. On the basis of the recovery-memo a case was registered in the general diary at G.R.P. Hapur. The accused were put on trial and they have been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Moradabad, through his judgment dated 15-12-89. Both were convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1990 which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 20th March, 1990. The appeal of Shahwaz was allowed and that of the accused-applicant, Abdul Ra...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Customs and Central Excis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991LC188(Allahabad); 1993(65)ELT483(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.The petitioner is a Sugar Mill. Molasses is by-product of sugar. It appears that in or about the year 1988, there was excess stock of molasses and the petitioner requested Central Excise authorities to permit it to store the same in Kachcha pits. The said permission was granted by the Central Excise authorities subject to the condition that the petitioner executes a bond in the prescribed form. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a bond, dated 5-5-1988, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure '1' to this petition. Clause '2' of the Bond reads as follows :'2. If the obligors having undertaken to pay to the Collector of Central Excise full duty which may be leviable on the molasses which may be stored by the obligors in the kachcha pits at their own risk, and having further agreed not to ask remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, even if such molasses got deteriorated, lost, damaged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »