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.
Brijendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All288
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. An order rejecting an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act has been challenged by one of the defts. in this appeal.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the dispute between the partiesrelate to the partnerhsip between plaintiff and defendant No. I and it fully covered the disputes raised in the suit and as such the application under S, 34 was legally maintainable and could not be rejected for the reasons set out in the impugned order.3. Sri R. G. Padia has filed caveat on behalf of the respondents.4. Since a very short question is involved in this appeal we are disposing of the appeal itself at the stage of admission as permissible under the rules of the Court.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and must fail.6. The plainiff and defendant No. 1 along with their father were carrying on business in partnership in the name and stayle of M/s. B. T. Paul & Sons since January, 1959...
Lal Man Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)249; [1992]196ITR743(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. This is a writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated February 15, 1989 (annexure 17 to the writ petition), issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward III(2), Bunda. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been called upon to remit the amount held by him for and on behalf of the defaulter, which was attached by the Income-tax Officer, earlier under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order puts the petitioner on notice that he has made payment to the defaulter even after receiving the attachment order which is illegal. Indeed, the impugned notice was issued in response to a representation made by the petitioner on February 13, 1989.2. One Gopal Das Gupta is the defaulter. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the total tax assessed was Rs. 67,44,255. A notice of demand was issued to the assessee-defaulter.3. On February 3, 1978, a notice was issued under Section 226(3) of the Act addressed to the firm, Lalm...
Raj Bahadur NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT409(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is a sugar factory. It worked during the sugar year 1972-73. The said sugar year commenced on 1st October, 1972 and ended on 30th September, 1973. The petitioner produced certain quantity of sugar during the period 1st May, 1973 to 30th June, 1973. It claimed benefit of the notification dated 28th September, 1972 issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The notification, evidently with a view to encourage increased production of sugar, provided certain concession in the matter of duty where the sugar is produced during the said sugar year, in excess of previous sugar year. It would be appropriate to set out the said notification in so far as it is relevant:' Government of IndiaMinistry of Finance(Department of Revenue & Insurance)New Delhi dated the 28th September, 19726th Asvina, 1894 S.K. Notification Central ExciseGSR. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of , the Central Government her...
Radhey Shyam Vs. the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board, Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All60
ORDER1. The petitioner Radhey Shyam has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an order, direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letters dated April 24, 1989 and April 26, 1989 (Annexures Nos. 4 and 5 respectively).2. The petitioner appeared in High School examination of the U. P. Intermediate Board of Education, Allahabad in the year 1976 from Dayanand Inter College, Gorakh-pur. In this application form, he had shown his date of birth as 1st Febr., 1962. He received his High School Certificate in the month of October 1979 wherein his date of birth was incorrectly shown as 6-6-1960 instead of 1st Febr., 1962. He immediately moved an application through the Principal of the College in accordance with the rules framed by the Education Board for rectification of his date of birth in the High School Certificate. The Principal of the College sent a report on 7-6-1980 to respondent No. 1 requesting to correct the date of birth ...
Rashtriya Vikas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR694(All)
K.P. Singh, J. 1. The assessee-petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the income-tax assessment year 1975-76 as is evident from annexure III attached with the writ petition.2. One of the grounds taken in the revision petition was as below :' Because the petitioner had not made the claim under Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the cinema carbon and process carbon manufacturing plant installed in his small-scale unit which came into operation after May 31, 1974, the learned Income-tax Officer as well as the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner both have erred and acted illegally in not allowing the deduction prescribed in Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'3. The revisional court, through its order dated January 22, 1982, repelled the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-petitioner in the following words :' It is contended by the assessee that the Income-tax Officer has not allowed deduction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›