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.
Krishna NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ196
U.K. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Sri S.D.N. Singh, Sessions Judge, Mirzapur dt. 17-11-1978 convicting Krishna Naraian, Gaya Dutt, Shree and Bachchan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and his order dt. 21-11-78 by which he sentenced all these appellants to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Bachchan having died during the pendency of this appeal, it has abated against him.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Ashok Kumar Shukla on Aug. 7, 1977 between 9 and 9.30 a.m. had gone to his ancestral field bearing No. 15-Ga in the village Nisogi for paddy plantation accompanied by his nephew Ugrasen, son of Triloki Nath Shukla. He was expecting his brother Radha Krishna Shukla complaint P.W. 1 to come with labourers for the above work. Ashok Kumar Shukla finding the level of water inside his field to be more than 10 to 12 inches, cut its northern Bandh 2 to 21/2 feet high and 3 feet wide. The excess water through the opening created ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Haiderali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ728
K.M. Pande, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner insurance company against an order of the Tribunal wherein it has been directed that the insurance company should pay Rs. 7,500/-as interim compensation in the light of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore for compensation for injuries which have been sustained by him in a motor accident. The petitioner insurance company was also impleaded as a party on the ground that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with it. The plea taken by the petitioner insurance company is that the policy of insurance from the very inception was void because insured opposite party No. 1 had issued a cheque against the premium which, on production before the bank, was dishonoured and he did not pay the amount of the premium for the policy of insurance which was issued to him.3. In this case there was ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rewa Sugar Works and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(37)LC190(Allahabad)
1. Though as many as ten questions are sought to be raised under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, only one question is argued before us which is comprised in Questions No. 2 to 4. Indeed it appears that Questions No. 1, 7 to 10 were not even raised in the application for reference filed before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we will address to the only aspect argued before us.2. The only question for consideration is whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Act; six months is the period of limitation. Within six months' period, the respondent manufacturer filed the refund claim. It was addressed to the Excise Collector, Central Excise, Sa-haranpur through the Supdt. It was filed before the Supdt., in the office of the said Asstt. Collector. Though it was filed within the period of limitation before the Supdt., by the time he forwarded it to the Asstt. Collector and the latter received...
Vikas Industrial Gases Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ191All; (1992)1UPLBEC25
S.K. Dhaon, J.1. The interpretation of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) or Section 16 as amended by Section 21 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) is the subject matter of this petition.2. The petitioner a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 went into commercial production on 15th March, 1984. It employed a maximum number of 34 workmen with effect from the said date. The petitioner company was engaged in an industry which was specified in Schedule-1 to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it employed more than 20 persons. Therefore, ordinarily the Act was applicable to it. However, in view of the provisions as contained in Clause (b), of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, as they then stood, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it for the time being.3. Section 16 of the Act, as relevant...
Ganeshi Rai and Another Vs. First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All25
ORDER1. This writ petifion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 10-10-1990 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, by which application No. 38-A moved by the plaintiff-appellants petitioners for amendment of the plaint in original suit No. 335 of 1979, was rejected. The said suit and the two other original suits Nos. 58 of 1981 and 226 of 1980 were consolidated and all the three suits were decided by a common judgment. The application seeking amendment in the plaint was moved before the appellate Court where the appeal was pending against the judgment rendered in the suit.2. Before adverting to the controversy in the writ petition it is necessary to set out few facts. The property in suit originally belonged to Baijnath Rai who died leaving behind certain heirs including a son Nagina Rai and his wife Smt. Rajneta who according to the petitioners were incapacitated and disabled to look after their affairs. The petitioner's ca...
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC161; 1992(58)ELT475(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is manufacturing sugar by vacuum pan process. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur, dated 28-2-1984 whereby a demand raised against the petitioner for refund of an amount of Rs. 10,94,280/- has been confirmed.2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are as under:In order to encourage and maximising the production of sugar, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued a notification dated 4-10-1973. The said notification was amended by another notification, dated 20-4-1974. Portions relevant for the purposes of the present case of the aforesaid notifications are being reproduced below:-'BHARAT SARKARVITTA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHIDATED...
Naresh Kumar Maheshwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All18; (1992)1UPLBEC380
ORDERS.K. Dhanon, J.1. The petitioner, a President of a Municipal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) approached this Court with this petition at a stage when a motion of no-confidence in him was about to be considered. On 2nd July, 1990, this Court passed an interim order, the relevant portion of which runs as follows :--'..... Accordingly, I direct that if themotion of no confidence is carried out against the petitioner in the meeting scheduled for today, the same shall not be given effect to till 10.7-1990.....'2. On 10th July, 1990, this Court passed another interim order to the following effect :--'.....In case no confidence motion isgoing to be passed or has been passed, the same shall be provisional and shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court in the present writ petition.....'3. On 1st December 1990, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, informed the petitioner that by a communication dated 30th November, 1990, received from the Secretary, Government of Ut...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR581(All)
1. Heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue. In the present application filed under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the applicant sought for the following question :' Whether the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra, that there was no element of deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in the transaction of sale of land by the assessee '2. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are quoted hereunder :The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that the difference was nominal, even less than fifteen per cent. He found that the land in question was not situated on the main road and that the purchaser was not related to the assessee.3. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by way of gift. We, therefore, looking to this and to other aspects mentioned in the impugned orders of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of which there is no rebuttal,...
Dr. R.D. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR533(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. In the present application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicant has sought for the following questions of law for reference :' 1. Whether there was any material with the Tribunal to hold in law that besides the loans admittedly received by the assessee from the L. I. C. of Rs. 10,790 and of Rs. 35,000 from Nagar Mahapalika and income from salary and private practice of the past so many years, the assessee had made, in this very year, unexplained investment of Rs. 41,288 in the construction of the house though as per the diary seized during the search the said amount represented the investment over a period of six years from 1979-80 to 1984-85, during which period the construction of the house had lasted besides the admitted borrowings of Rs. 45,790 ? 2. Whether there was any application of mind by the Tribunal in considering that there was an unexplained investment of Rs. 41,288 by the assessee in this year in the construction of the house ?...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hari Om Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR347(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. By means of the present applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has sought for the following questions of law to be referred to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in placing reliance on the assessment order passed on a date subsequent to the date of order under Section 263 ?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative then, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in not taking into consideration the subsequent facts ascertained on the basis of enquiries made subsequent to the date of the order under Section 263 which establish that the ladies had not earned any income at all and that the income belonged only to the assessee ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Inco...