Allahabad Court May 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.
Birendra Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All151; 1992CriLJ1436
ORDER1. The proceedings before this court are by nomination of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice upon a difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges, who after having delivered their judgments desires the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to place the matter before a third judge.2. A situation like this occurred in this court more than 100 years ago to which this court will refer to later, but, at the present moment it would be best to take recourse to the charter of this court known as Rules of the Court, 1952, the successor to the Letters Patent which established the High Court. The situation has arisen as learned counsel arguing for the petitioner has cautioned the courtthat he has reservation that the reference which has been made may not be compatible with the High Court Rules and it may not be misunderstood later that the situation was not brought to the court's notice.3. At present, the court is not going into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the Bench comprising of the ...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Mahendra Kumar Mittal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All35
ORDERG.K. Mathur, J.1. The plaintiff haspreferred this appeal against the order dated April 12, 1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Bareilly, in Suit No. 225 of 1990 (Rajendra Kumar v. Mahendra Kumar Mittal) : whereby the application for issue of ad interim injunction has been rejected.2. In the appeal, on the application of the appellant for injunction, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from alienating the property by order dated May 23, 1990, in the meanwhile. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application for vacation of the aforesaid interim order dated May 23, 1990, supported by counter-affidavit of Mahendra Kumar Mittal, respondent No. 1. The appellant Rajendra Kumar has filed rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit.3. With the consent of the counsel for the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 we proceeded to dispose of the appeal at the admission stage.4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement on December 9, 1988...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wazir Chand and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR561(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This applications under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), it appears to us, is misconceived and is not maintainable. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made an application to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Act for making a reference to this court on the questions set out in the application. The Tribunal, by its order dated March 9, 1990, drew up a statement of the case and circulated it to the parties. However, by its order dated August 21, 1990, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order andrefused to forward the statement of the case to this court, observing as under : 'In spite of a number of opportunities given to the Commissioner of Income-tax, the annexures are not filed. We, therefore, recall the draft statement of the case prepared and decline to draw up a statement of the case, since reference without annexures cannot be made...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Pipe Udyog Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR514(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 Revenue. The only question that was canvassed before the tax authorities was whether the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act were barred by time. The Tribunalhas held in the affirmative. The Tribunal has also rejected the application under Section 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application has been made. 2. The initial assessment order was passed on March 31, 1982. That assessment order was, admittedly, rectified by an order dated May 26, 1982. The assessment order was rectified for the second time on May 22, 1986. It is this rectification order which is the subject-matter of the controversy in the present application. 3. According to the assessee, in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act, the rectification could not have been made after March 31, 1986, i.e., beyond the period of four years from the end of the financial year in which the a...
Radla Machinery Experts Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR493(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice is issued with respect to the assessment year 1974-75. According to the petitioner, prior to the issuance of the impugned notice, a similar notice was issued proposing to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b). The petitioner made a representation to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who directed the Income-tax Officer to drop the proceedings. It is thereafter that the present impugned notice was given proposing action under Clause (a) of Section 147.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the assessment is reopened with a view to include in the income of the assessee, the interest earned by him on the security deposit made by him with the Telephone Department under the O. Y. T. Scheme and also the interest earned by him on the deposits made with the U. P. Electric Supply Company, Lucknow. Along with the coun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Ayyub and Sons Agency
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR637(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed at the instance of the Revenue. Two questions have been proposed in this application. The controversy raised revolves around the question whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, could permit the assessee to raise the plea of jurisdiction for the first time before it which was not raised earlier either before the Assessing Officer or before the first appellate authority.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that any statable question of law arises in this case. The power of the Tribunal to permit any party to the appeal to raise the question of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter and does not involve further investigation into facts, cannot be disputed on the plain reading of Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Indeed, on such a plea being taken, the Tribunal is under a statutory obligation not only to entertai...
Gopal Prasad Mathuria Vs. Angoori Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC176
B.L. Yadav, J.1. This is plaintiff's First Appeal From Order directed against the order dated 24.4.1991 passed by Family Court Agra rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (for short the Act) and Section 6 of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act.2. The factual matrix is that the appellant and respondent being husband and wife, lived together and the wife gave birth to two sons namely Rabikant and Raghubir, but now they (the wife and husband) are living separately. The sons are with the mother. The father, appellant moved application for the custody of sons which was contested by the mother, the respondent, on the ground that since the appellant has remarried Smt. Munni Devi, in case the sons are given to the custody of father, the sons would get step-motherly treatment which would naturally affect welfare of the children. After considering facts, circumstances of the case and evidence on record, Family Court held that welfare of the children w...
L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT240(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This is an application Under Sub-section (3) of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By this application the petitioner manufacturer is requesting this Court to direct the CEGAT to state as many as eight questions of law, which according to it arise from the Tribunal's order dated 30th March, 1990. The eight questions of law sought to be referred are the following:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the imposition of fine of Rs. 30,000 and penalty of Rs. 25,000 and order of confiscation of 603 scooters by the respondent was valid in law?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the RG-1 stage had been reached in respect of scooters even before they have been subjected to quality control tests, checks and inspection by the quality control staff and the 'OK' stickers initialled by the competent quality control staff wh...
Vespa Car Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT496(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Although the petitioner has challenged two orders of Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad dated 18-2-1991 and 10-4-1991 in this writ petition, we are confining this writ petition only to the order dated 10-4-1991.2. The appellant had filed eight appeals and had filed stay petitions in all the eight of them. Stay petition in two appeals were disposed of by order dated 18-2-1991 and the stay petitions in the remaining six appeals were disposed of by order dated 10-4-1991. A single writ petition against both the said orders is not maintainable. It is for this reason that we are confining this writ petition only to the order dated 10-4-1991.3. We have perused the impugned order. In our opinion, it does not really come to grip with the facts of the case relevant at this stage. The Appellate Collector says in the first instance that he has perused the judgments cited by the appellant. He then refers to two judgments of the Supreme Court and says that prima ...
Lakhan Lal Baronia Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2546
ORDERS.R. Bhargava, J.1. This Revision has arisen in curious circumstances.2. Revisionist Lakhan Lal Baronia is Principal of a college at Lalitpur. Opposite Party No. 2 Krishna Nandan Prasad Sinha is a teacher in the same college. University of Bundelkhand appointed opposite party No. 2 Krishna Nandan Prasad as examiner and sent some answer books of B.A. in the year 1984 to him. It sent the railway receipt under separate Registered Post. For the purposes of this case it is not disputed that revisionist took delivery of the Registered envelope and answer books. He examined the answer books and realised remuneration from the University. Opposite Party No. 2 Krishna Nandan Prasad filed criminal complaint against the revisionist and a clerk of Post Office for offences under Sections 379, 403, 420, 427 and 461 read with Section 109, I.P.C. Revisionist was summoned. His plea was that during relevant period opposite party No. 2 was not available at Lalitpur as he had gone to Patna in connecti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »