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.
Nathu Singh S/O Hariya Vs. Jagdish Singh S/O Jhumman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All174
1. This Second Appeal is by a plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. Only two main questions are raised in the appeal. Firstly whether on the findings recorded, the plaintiff had failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and secondly what value should be attached to the undelivered notices sent by the plaintiff prior to the suit One more question has emerged due to the change of circumstances during the pendency of the appeal. It is as to the effect of the acquisition of the land in question on the relief sought.2. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was the original owner of the land and on 3-7-1973 he had transferred the same to the defendant. Simultaneously the defendant admittedly had entered into an agreement for re-transferring the property to the plaintiff for a sum ofRs. 15,000/- within two years. Prior to the suit the plaintiff sent notices by registered post on 22-3-74and 6-5-1975 but both of them were returned undelivered...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR25(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not valid and, therefore, the supplementary assessment made in pursuance thereof has to be annulled.'2. The assessee is a company. In the year 1931, it entered into a contract with a German firm for purchase of machinery. The machinery was delivered in April, 1932. The delivery was not within the time stipulated, nor was it according to specifications. The assessee, therefore, instituted a suit against the said firm in 1935 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,05,000. The suit was ultimately decreed in December, 1953, for the said sum plus interest pendente lite. Though the total amount so decreed came to more t...
Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR557]; (1994)IIILLJ388All; (1991)1UPLBEC557
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1 Heard Shri Ajai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have Been exchanged and both the learned counsel are agreed that this writ petition may be heard and finally disposed of at this stage.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was employed on 18th May, 1949 as a work charged daily wage employee by respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by action of the respondents in retiring him on 30th June, 1989 on the basis of the notice, dated 9th May, 1989 which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner made a representation on 28th September, 1988 and along with this representation he filed a school leaving certificate and affidavit, dated 27th September, 1988. The school leaving certificate has been issued on 1st September, 1988 by the Basic Siksha Parishad, Barabanki and the certificate has been signed by...
Hindustani Bus Service, Moradabad Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All382
ORDER1. Petitioner was holding a permanent stage carriage permit on Dheoti-sherpur-Amroha route; (hereinafter referred to as route). This permiti was cancelled by Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as R.T.A.) under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by an order dated 22-4-1987, against which the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. It is against these orders that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. On 2-1-1986 the bus of the petitioner was plying under the aforesaid permit, which was checked and following defects and short-comings were noticed.1. Entire body of the vehicle was damaged. 2. Door of the vehicle was broken. 3. Windows were without pans. 4. Wind-screen glass broken. 5. Hand-break not fitted. 6. Play in the sterring was more than 45% 7. Fitness suspended, if valid. 8. All the seats broken. 9. R. C. and fitness certificates not produced on demand. 10. Proof of the dep...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR834(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal stated the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments in question constituted in law application of income or diversion of income at source by on overriding title ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments in question constituted expenditure on capital account or was it a revenue expenditure ?' The assessee is an individual. The assessment year concerned herein is 1970-71. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee raised a claim before the Income-tax Officer that he had borrowed certain amounts from two persons, namely, Sarvsri Mahabir Lal and Hira Lal, which amount he invested in a firm, Messrs. Raja Ram Jamuna Prasad Banarsi Lal Shambhoo Nath, in which firm the assessee had a share to the extent of 60%. The petitioner's case was that he entered into an agreement with the aforesaid two lenders som...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shahsi Kumar Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR767(All); [1993]66TAXMAN637(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the surplus of Rs. 44,824 received from sale of plots was not assessable as income from an adventure in the nature of trade ?'The assessee is a railway employee. The assessment years concerned are 1971-72 and 1972-73.2. The assessee's father gifted a piece of land to the assessee under a gift deed dated March 4, 1968. Some time thereafter, the assessee proposed to sell the same but evidently with a view to get a better price, he got a lay out plan prepared. According to this lay out plan, the land was carved out into several plots and roads. He sold the plots through a broker. He filed a return in which he declared the surplus as his capital gain. The Income-tax Officer, however, was of the opinion that the assessee must be deemed to have undertaken an ad...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Anwar Ahmad Shamshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR680(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in knocking off the penalty solely on the ground that the income of the assessee had been made by estimate ?'2. The assessee is a private medical practitioner of Bijnor. The assessment year concerned is 1970-71. He declared a total income of Rs. 6,381. The Income-tax Officer, however, estimated the income at Rs. 55,315. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced it to Rs. 34,815. On further appeal, the Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 16,815.3. Meanwhile, proceedings for levying penalty were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner found that this is a case to which the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was attracted and that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden which lies upon him by virtue of...
Ravindra and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: 1992LC60(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT12(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated 6-12-1990 from the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise (Annexure-15) as well as the communication dated 10-12-1990 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise (Annexure-17).2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. According to it, it is engaged in the sale and purchase of Tobacco under three brand names, namely 'Assam Bengal Scented Khaini', 'Hari Chhap Tobacco', and 'Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco'. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the latter two. The dispute is whether the Tobacco sold by the petitioner under the above brand names is a manufactured tobacco 6r is it unmanufactured tobacco? The petitioner says that under trade notice No. 136/1987, it was notified by the Central Excise Collector, Kanpur that -'un-manufactured tobacco merely broken by beating and then sieved and packed in retail packets with or without brand names for consumption as chew...
L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(39)LC261(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is preferred against two orders of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act. Against these orders, an application for 'Reference' lies Under Section 35-G. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.2. However, it is open to the petitioner to file application for 'Reference' before the Tribunal and if it declined, it is always open to him to approach this Court according to law....
Vedpal Singh Vs. Harbansh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All320
ORDER1. Vedpal Singh has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 29-3-1990 against the decree for possession and ejectment of the revisionist from the accommodation in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent etc.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits havebeen exchanged and, therefore, arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard for final disposal at the time of admission of the revision.3. Admittedly the revisionist has been tenant of the plaintiff of the accommodation in suit at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. According to the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party the accommodation in suit was constructed in the year 1980 and was assessed to house tax from 1st April 1980 and, therefore, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to it. The suit was filed in the year 1987 which was decreed against the revisionist. On being aggrieved, this revision has been preferred and following points were pressed in this revision. Firstly, it was urged that the no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »