Allahabad Court August 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.
Mohammad Javed Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All38
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions have stated that these cases involve the same points and can be disposed of by one common judgment. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties Writ Petition No. 2582 of 1990, Mohammad Javed v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow and others has been made the leading case and only the facts of the leading case are given in this judgment.2. Petitioner is a state carriage operator. The Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) vide its order dated 11-2-1988 imposed a model condition of ten years in the stage carriage permits with the result that the vehicle under stage carriage permit cannot be more than ten years old. The RTA for that purpose grantedsix months' time to the stage carriage operators for replacing the vehicle, if it is more than ten years old from the date of registration. Against this order an appeal was filed before the State Transport Appellate...
Tara Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All383
ORDER1. The order dated 20th March, 1991 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the application made by the petitioner to authorise him to operate his stage carriage on Hinduwari-Robertsganj route is being impugned in the present writ petition.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Competent Authority. Shri S. K. Sharma has put in appearance on behalf of that Authority and he has been heard.3. The father of the petitioner held a stage carriage permit No. 318 on Ahraura-Hindu wari-Robertsganj Punnuganj route. A notification under Section 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was issued sometimes in 1961 declaring Varanasi-Pipri viz. Mirzapur route as a notified one. A portion between Hinduwari and Robertsganj formed part of the said route and, therefore, that portion of the route namely Hinduwari and Robertsganj was deleted from the permit of the petitioner's father.4. Admittedly the petitioner's father held a stage carriage permit No. 318.on Ahraura-Hinduwari-Robe...
Taj Beverages (P) Ltd Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC341; 1991LC497(Allahabad)
A.P. Misra. J.1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are disposing of this writ petition finally. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, decided the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,42,918-47P, under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, vide his order dated 16.7.1990. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said orders, filed an appeal on 17th October, 1990 and subsequently a waiver and stay applications dated 8th January, 1991. The appeal was preferred under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal vide its impugned orderdated 2nd July, 1991 partly waived the amount in question directing the petitione...
Mohammad YasIn and Another Vs. Mohammad YasIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All55
ORDER1. Petitioners were the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.2. Mohd. Bashir and Abdul Ghafoor were the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 13. They were the owners of the open piece of land in dispute. They executed an agreement to sell on 23-1-73 in favour of the petitioners. On the same day by means of another deed they permitted the petitioners to construct the boundary wall around the said land. It was done by the plaintiff. Subsequently Mohd. Bashir and Abdul Ghafoor expressed their unwillingness to execute the sale deed. This led the petitioners to file the suit in the year 1977 for specific performance of the contract for sale.3. The defendants filed their written statements. The execution and genuineness of the agreement to sell was challenged. The properties sought to be transferred were in two different parts belonging to two different persons, so the sale deed could not be executed. The defendants have raised certain const...
Har Govind Vs. Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1559
V.K. Khanna, J.1. According to the petitioner, he is a tenureholder and had sown crops of ground nut, Jwar, Jau, Wheat Gram and maze over his land. In order to facilitate the sale of agricultural produce the petitioner has taken on rent House No. 580 Main Road, Babina Cantt. district Jhansi on 29-7-1991 a first information report was lodged by the respondent No. 2 and according to the petitioner foodgrains belonging to him were seized. In respect of the seized foodgrains the Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi has passed an order dated 12-8-1991 which is contained in Annexure '8' to the writ petition. The seized commodities have been ordered to be auctioned on 12-8-1991 under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter described as the 'Act'). It is this order passed under Section 6-A(2) of the Act which has been challenged in this writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has first urged that the entire seizure proceedings are bad inasmuch as the petition...
Stra Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Exc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC499(Allahabad)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Union.2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought for a direction to the Collector (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal and the stay application expeditiously and further not to recover any sum towards the Excise Duty from the petitioner on the basis of orders dated 21st August, 1989 6th August, 1990 and 8th August, 1990.3. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 10 of the petition that he had moved a stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and has also moved an appeal against the aforesaid order passed against the petitioner. The Collector (Appeals) has fixed several dates for arguments and arguments were heard by the Appellate Authority in the appeal on merits. However, after conclusion of arguments the petitioner has received a notice from the said appellate authority for the said appeal being heard again on 19th June, 1991. So far, the said ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sri Ganga Prasad Jaiswal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD444(All.)
1. It is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the learned CIT(A) dated 10-1 -1991 for the assessment year 1968-69. The following grounds have been taken up:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in annulling the assessment merely because of the fact that the notice was not issued in the names of the legal heirs of the assessee when as per provisions of Section 292B it was a technical mistake. He also did not give due consideration to the fact that this notice was duly complied with and the return was filed by the legal heir. 2. The learned CIT(A), while deciding the appeal, has relied upon the ratio of decisions of different Hon'ble Courts which had no occasion to consider the provisions of Section 292B because it was on the status when the relevant cases were decided. Therefore, placing reliance on such decisions was also not correct in law. 3. That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts may be set aside and the order of the ITO may be restored.2. Alt...
Radhey Shyam Jaiswal Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR623(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Bharatji Agarwal, senior standing counsel for the Revenue.2. The present writ petition is for a mandamus directing the Income-tax (Appellate) Tribunal), Allahabad, to decide the stay application of the petitioner pending before it for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1986-87, and for further directing the Assistant Commissioner, Investigation, Circle I (1), Kanpur, to stay the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act pending before him.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on May 4, 1990, and also moved an application for stay on May 23, 1991, which is still pending before the said authority. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the stay application of the petitioner being pending, the respondent-authority concerned has initiated penalty proceedings against the petitioner and hence the present writ petition.4. Having...
Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR669(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also standing counsel for the Revenue.2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 18, 1991, and restraining the Assessing Officer, Ward I(4), Kanpur, from proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the said notice. The petitioner had already filed an objection to the said notice which is annexure 7A to the present writ petition.3. The ground of attack against the said notice by the petitioner is that since the proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued earlier against the petitioner under Section 148 were still continuing and the assessment order in question was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax and comments were sought for from the Income-tax Officer for ascertaining the fact as to whether the assessee had filed the return for the relevant assessment year or not, the second notice dated March 18, 1991, issue...
Harig India Limited Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-iv, Divi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC60
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-IV, Division-II, Ghaziabad dated 14th August 1991. It would be appropriate to set-out the impugned order in its entirety as follows:Central Excise Range IV, Ghaziabad.C.NO. 20-CE/C.T.2/90/945 Dt. 14.8.91ToM/s. Harig IndiaLtd.,Mohan Nagar,Ghaziabad.Dear Sir,Sub: Notification No.239/86-CE dt.3.4.86--Issue of C.T.2 Certificates thereunder in favour of M/s. Harig India Ltd. Mohannagar--Regarding.It has been considered that benefit of Notification No.239/86-CE dated 3.4.86 is not admissible to you and as such the C.T.2 certificates Nos. 1/Harig/91 to 12/Harig/91 each dated 22.4.91 issued by the undersigned in your favour relating to different parties for procurement of excisable goods under changed procedure, may be treated as cancelled and withdrawn. The concerned parties may please be informed accordingly.2. Petitioner's case is that he is manufacturer of Hydraulic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »