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.
Kunwar Hari Raj Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Bijnor and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All203; (1991)2UPLBEC1061
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice of the meeting proposed to be held on 31-1-1991 (Annexure '6' to the writ petition) regarding vote of no confidence against the petitioner. Another prayer has also been made seeking writ of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1 to cancel the meeting proposed to be held on 31-1-1991.2. The petitioner is elected Chairman of Nagar Palika, Haldaur, District Bijnor. It appears that on 31-12-1990 allegedly 13 members of the Nagar Palika moved a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner as is evident from Annexure '1' to the writ petition, and prayed for calling the meeting according to law for the aforesaid purpose. On 3-1-1991 an application has been moved on behalf of one Smt. Yashoda Devi/alleging that hersignature was forged as she had not signed. Therefore, further proceedings on the charges against the petitioner should be proceeded with according to the rules. The applicati...
Cawnpore Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR296(All)
K.P. Singh, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant provisions of sections 251 and 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 59,117 and Rs. 11,594 on account of commission to selling agents could not be contested and considered on merits in the appeal filed against the relevant fresh assessment made after setting aside the original assessment?'The necessary facts leading to the above question are that the assessee-applicant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of heavy chemicals. The assessment year under consideration is 1972-73. On February 27, 1973, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment and disallowed sums of Rs. 59,117 and Rs. 11,594 on account of commission paid...
Sardar Gur Iqbal Singh and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Wealth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)148; [1992]197ITR269(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated December 21, 1979, under Section 18B(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), by which the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Meerut, has rejected in part an application for waiver or reduction of penalty, filed by one Sardar Jeewan Singh (since deceased), father of the first petitioner. Another challenge is to three notice letters issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer (Wealth-tax) 'E' Ward, Saharanpur, by which the second petitioner, Messrs. Rana Rubber Industries, a partnership firm and its banker were required to remit Rs. 26,539 to the Department from any amount due to Sardar Jeewan Singh/Rana Rubber Industries in satisfaction of the arrears being the amount of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 imposed on Sardar Jeewan Singh and interest due thereon.2. While entertaining the writ petition by an order dated Ma...
Sri Ram and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ181
ORDERSurya Prasad, J.1. This is a criminal revision against the judment and order dated 20-2-90 passed by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 397 of 1989 Bhagirathi v. Shri Ram and Ors. setting aside the judgment and order dated 20-6-89 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harraiya, District Basti in Criminal Case No. A-104/ 11/86 Shri Ram v. Bhagirathi under Section 133, Cr.P.C, P. S. Chhawani, District Basti.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after perusing the report of the Station Officer of the police station concerned dated 15-5-88 passed a conditional order directing the opposite party Bhagirathi and another to remove the constructions raised by them within 15 days or to appear in the Court to show cause why the conditional order should not be made final. The opposite party Bhagirathi appeared in the Court and filed his objection denying the existence of any public path. The Naib Tehsildar concerned submitt...
Smt. Barsha Arora Vs. Satish Kumar Arora
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC295
Palok Basu, J.1. An absorbing question arises in the present Second Appeal. If a husband has obtained an ex-parte decree for divorce wife and the first appeal by the wife is dismissed and thereafter the husband remarries after the period of limitation for filing Second Appeal and the additional period for obtaining certified copy, etc, is over, should the second appeal by the wife filed before this Court after allowing her benefit of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act be dismissed as infructuous on account of the said remarriage of the husband or not ?2. The facts are that suit No. 19 of 1981 was filed by Satish Kumar Arora (hereinafter referred to as the husband) against Smt. Barsha Arora (hereinafter referred to as the wife) for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged that there was another suit filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights filed earlier than the suit of t...
Khusal Chand NaraIn Das (Huf) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(All)66; [1991]192ITR116(All); [1991]59TAXMAN420(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. This is a petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated January 22, 1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appropriate Authority), Income-tax Department, Lucknow, and also further commanding the respondents to issue a 'no-objection certificate' under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, The petitioner, who is the owner of certain property at Kanpur, entered into an agreement of sale with one Mohammed Ibrahim on September 20, 1988, for sale of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 24 lakhs. The petitioner gave intimation of the said agreement to the appropriate authority as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 269UG. According to Sub-section (1) of Section 269UD, the appropriate authority has to make an order thereunder within two months from the end of the month in which the intimation aforesaid is received by the appropriate authority. This means that the authority had to pass an order p...
Preetpal Singh Vs. Ishwari Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3015; II(1991)DMC460
S.R. Bhargava, J.1. This Criminal Revision has come up in peculiar circumstances.2. Opposite party No. 2 Mahendra Singh and opposite party No. 1 Smt. Ishwari Devi are husband and wife. They are blessed with sons Yashpal and revisionist Preet Pal Singh. Wife Smt. Ishwari Devi filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband claiming maintenance for herself and her minor sons. She attributed unfaithfulness to her husband, who has illicit relation with one Smt. Kaushal. She further alleged that despite means that is salary income of Rs. 2500/- per month and annual income from 50 bighas of land, her husband has been neglecting her and her children. Husband resisted the application and denied the allegations of the wife. He alleged that the wife is employed and is getting Rs. 1000/- per month. But there was break in service. He denied that the children lived with her. He pointed out that in divorce petition, he is paying Rs. 300/- per month to the wife.3. Learned Magistrat...
Gopal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2845
ORDERS.R. Bhargava, J.1. This Criminal revision is directed against order dated 14th November, 1990, passed by Special Judge (B.C. Act) Mathura, refusing release of seized property on ground of bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act which runs as under:--'6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases:--Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned under Section 6C shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, dis...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Hemantpat Singhania and Smt. Jamuna Dev ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR183(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short ' the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in quashing the penalty order under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, C-Range, Kanpur 'This reference relates to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Simultaneously with the completion of the assessments, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act. He referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 18(3) as it stood at the relevant time. The assessee was subjected to penalty of varying amounts for those years by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by his composite order passed under S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Finance and General Trading Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(All)132; [1992]197ITR248(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. In compliance with the direction of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only the net amount of interest paid to a partner after deducting the interest paid by him could be added to the firm's income under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm which derives income from the financing of vehicles on hire purchase system. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1973-74 for which the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1972, As against the returned income of Rs. 91,800, the assessment was completed on Rs. 1,09,180 which included disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 38,738. In making the said disallowance of interest under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer did not take into account and set off the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »