Allahabad Court September 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.
Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All225
ORDERA.N. Varma, J.1. The short question raised for consideration in this writ petition is whether cuttings and 'trimmings' of wood commonly called wood waste are also 'wood' exigible to market fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Act for short).2. The question arises in this way. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has a factory in the Industrial Area, Sahibabad in the district of Ghaziabad. It carries on the business of designing, erecting and commissioning of Cooling Towers as per the specification of its customers. In the erection of Cooling Towers the petitioner requires and prepares what are called 'Scantlings' out of various kinds of wood such as chir and ply etc. These scantlings are prepared by sawing, sizing and drilling etc. of the wood. In the process of sawing and drilling etc. of the wood, waste in the form of cuttings and trimmings (herein .after referred to as waste) come into being. The petitioner sells this waste...
Trilochan Singh Vs. Kuljit Kaur and Two ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC220
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.5.1990 passed by the Chief Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City, by which the family Court has passed orders under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 and directed Air Marshal, Head Quarters, Air Force Building, New Delhi, not to pay the provident fund and gratuity and pension etc. payable to the applicant, Trilochan Singh who was retiring on 23.5.1990. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed. This Court was pleased to direct the applicant to serve the respondents, Respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri K.K. Tripathi.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties Sri K.K. Tripathi is not present In the Court.3. A ex-parte decree for divorce was passed by the family Court on the application of the applicant, Sardar Trilochan Singh, decreeing the dirvorce case against Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. Restoration appl...
Shobha Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1371
ORDERV.N. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a second bail application moved by Applicant Shobha Ram in a case under Sections 302/307/452, I.P.C. The first bail application which was moved by the present applicant and one Kishan Pal was rejected by me on merits on 11-3-1991.2. The present bail application has been moved on the ground that after the rejection of first bail application moved by the applicant, bail has been granted to co-accused Chandra Pal by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L. Ganguli on 20-7-1991. It is argued that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused Chandra Pal and on the ground of parity, the applicant should also be granted bail.3. On behalf of the complainant as well as the State, it has been asserted that after the rejection of the first bail application moved by the present applicant, one application by another co-accused was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.K. Chaubey and this fact was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L. Ganguli ...
Karuna Shankar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR203]; (1995)IIILLJ60All
S.H. Raza, J. 1. The petitioners, who by means of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, were appointed as apprentices for undergoing training for a period of three years as contained in Annexure-2, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the alleged termination or retrenchment of their services after the expiry of the said period. Sri S.S. Rawat, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners were not appointed as apprentices in accordance with provisions contained in Apprentice Act, 1961, and they were 'workmen' within the meaning of word 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial-Disputes Act which reads as under: 'Workman' means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relat...
ishrat HusaIn Khan Vs. Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All215
ORDER1. The petitioner is defendant in a suit which is pending in Civil Court at Gorakhpur. It appears that a suit for partition was brought by the plaintiffs in respect of middle portion of a house situate at Gorakhpur. The plaintiffs were Amanat Husain Khan Smt. Jannat Bibi. The petitioner was defendant No. 1 in the said suit. The respondent No. 4, who was also a defendant in the said suit, is said to be son-in-taw of Amanat Husain Khan. The plaintiffs case was that one Smt. Asmat Bibi, who was mother of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein was the sole owner of three parts of the house in dispute. She had sold northern part of the said house to her daughter Smt. Jannat Bibi, who is respondent No. 3 here in on 26-10-1984 and by an oral gift made in 1972 she had given southern portion of the house to respondent No. 4, who is son-in-law of the respondent No. 2. The central portion of the house in dispute was said to be liable to be partitioned. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 claime...
Sri Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR726(All)
R.R. Misra, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, Sri Jawahar Lal Gupta, the petitioner, as an individual, has sought to challenge the notice dated January 15, 1991, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Agra, seeking to reopen the assessment proceedings under Section 147(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1989-90. Immediately on receipt of the said notice, the assessee had asked for a copy of the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on which the assessment was sought to be reopened. Since no return was filed, the Income-tax Officer declined to do so until the return was filed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 353 of 1991 in this court, which was decided on April 18, 1991 (see : [1992]196ITR147(All) ). In the counter affidavit, the respondent had stated that he had never refused access to the reasons on which notice under Section 147(1)(a) of the Act was issued, nor ...
The Secretary of Communication, Post and Telegraphs Deptt. and Others ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All270
ORDER1. This petition presents a peculiar state of facts. The respondent No. 4, R. A. Dubey, was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication from which he retired on 30-4-1980. Some disciplinary proceedings initiated during the service of the said respondents were concluded only after his retirement. He was, however, eventually cleared of the charges and given the selection grade along with his arrears of pay etc. The respondent No. 4 filed a Civil Suit No. 1398 of 1983 against the petitioners seeking a declaration that he should be deemed to have been inGroup B service of the Tele-communication Wing in the Post and Telegraph Department w.e.f. 8-8-1973 till his retirement. This suit was decreed ex parte on 7-5-1985. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before the learned Munsif stating that they came to know of the ex parte decree only on the date of the attachment of some properties of the Department on 16-7-1986. The ex parte decree was set aside by the learned Muns...
Shiv Shanker Sita Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR169(All)
ORDER--Neither signed nor approved--Final order after further investigation--Penalty imposed not to commence from date of draft order.HELD :The draft orders dt. 20-2-1965 were not final orders and were not orders as contemplated by s. 275 for the purposes of limitation. An authority could be said to have passed an order which became final only when the said authority made up its mind. In the case of the assessee on 20-2-1965, the ITO had drafted assessment orders tentatively for the approval of the CIT and he had not finally made up his mind with regard to the said assessment made against the assessee. The assessment orders drafted by the ITO on 20-2-1965 in law was not a final order so that limitation for drawing up penalty proceedings would commence from that date.Income Tax Act 1961 s.147Income Tax Act 1961 s.271(1)(c)...
Sukhlal Ice and Cold Storage Company Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR129(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. On January 28, 1985, it was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ), for the assessment year 1982-83. Ultimately, an assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on July 31, 1989. On appeal preferred by the assessee against the assessment order, the first appellate authority by his order dated July 30, 1989, remanded the case back to the assessing authority. The assessee still feeling aggrieved against the said order of the first appellate authority filed a second appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated March 30, 1990, allowed the appeal of the assessee and accepted the said contention of the assessee holding that the issue of the impugned notice so served on January 28, 1985, was illegal as the rea...
Shanti Plywood Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Collector, Central Exc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: 1993(45)LC367(Allahabad)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard the Chief Standing Counsel for Central Government.2. The petitioner says that it is a manufacturer of block boards and that without knowing the correct legal position, it filed a classification list with effect from 1.4.1990 classifying the block boards under tariff sub-heading 4408.90. It was approved. The petitioner says that he realised the mistake later when he found that other manufacturers are claiming that the said products are to be classified under tariff sub-heading 440.90 and not under 4408.90 and accordingly he filed a revised classification list on 21.8.1991 which has been rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 21.8.1991. It is the said order which is questioned in this writ petition.3. Ordinarily, the question of classification is not a matter to be considered by this Court at this stage. The hierarchy of appeals and other remedies provided by the statute are to be pursued before approaching this Court, as repeatedly he...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »