Allahabad Court January 1992 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahesh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(All)327; [1993]199ITR247(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the question set out in the application for the opinion of this court.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Against the loss return of Rs. 9,145, the assessment was completed on a net taxable income of Rs. 81,042. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who allowed the appeal and deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. On second appeal at the instance of the Revenue, the appellate order was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The application under Section 256(1) of the Act filed by the Department having been dismissed, this application has been filed for the directions from this court, set out earlier.3. The question proposed in the application re...
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh and anr. Vs. Dy. Chief Labour Commissio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ831All
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. By means of this petition, three petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Clause 20.8 of the certified Standing Orders of the Respondent No. 2 and also for the quashing the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 20.10.89 which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-1.2. For certification of the Standing Orders pertaining to the employees of M/s. Mathura Refinery under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Standing Orders'). Steps were taken by the Indian On Corporation before Certifying Officer, who, after hearing the Oil Corporation and the representatives of the Registered Trade Union, certified the Standing Orders on 31.1.1985. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the Indian Oil Corporation before the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi under provision of Section 6 of the Standing Orders. The Dy...
Gajroo (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ501
P.P. Gupta, J.1. This is a criminal appeal filed by Gujroo against the judgment and order dated 1-5-1991, passed by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, in S.T. No. 389 of 1990, convicting the accused-appellant, Gajroo, under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years.2. The present appellant along with three others, viz. Ramgulli alias Ram Charan, Tulsi and Munnilal, was committed to the Court of Sessions. The co-accused, Tulsi and Munnilal were discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C. by the Court of Sessions at the stage of framing charge. The trial, therefore, took place against the present appellant, Gajroo and the other Ramgulli alias Ram Charan. The second accused Ramgulli alias Ram Charan was however, not found guilty to the charge under Section 395/397, I.P.C. and was accordingly acquitted.3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the night between 20/21-6-1990 at about 1.00 a.m., in villages Nakdaiyapur, Kashimpur and saray Sukh Ma...
Om Prakash Malhotra Vs. Smt. Nirla and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ993; AIR1992All233
ORDER1. Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Constituted u/S. 165 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act),can impose cost while recalling an orderpurporting to have been passed under Order 9Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,(for short the Code), is the short but significant question that falls for determination inthis Civil Revision filed by opposite parties(the defendant) in a motor accident claimpreferred by opposite parties 1 to 6 against theapplicant, the owner of the vehicle andopposite party No. 7. 2. The facts need not detain much as the same are admitted. A claim petition' was filed by opposite parties 1 to 6 against the applicant, the owner of the vehicle and opposite party No. 7 the National Insurance Co. It was alleged that one Jagax Narain, the husband of opposite party No. 1 Smt. Nirmala Kumari . and father of opposite party No. 2 died in an accident caused by the truck belonging to applicant. A claim for a sum of Rs. 317600/-was made by opposite ...
Kumson Motor Owners Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(All)286; [1993]201ITR601(All); [1992]62TAXMAN407(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion.' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claim of the assessee is not allowable in the years under consideration by virtue of the provisions of Section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the case of the assessee-company is not covered by the provisions of Section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Act?'2. The assessee is a company limited by guarantee and had adopted the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee-company had debited certain amounts under the head ' Gratuity ' in the income and expenditure account. The auditors in their footnote to their balance-sheet for both the years have stated as under :' Gratuity.--No provision ex...
Cawnpore Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR70(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. This petition furnishes a revealing instance of how an assessee has been kept deprived of his legitimate claim for interest admittedly due to him under Sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has had to fight for his claim at every step and it was not until the court intervened that the authorities moved in the matter. It is sad that the authorities responsible for refund of the amounts due to the petitioner as a direct consequence of orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal denied the refund and the interest thereon without even a semblance of justification.2. These are the facts. For the assessment year 1979-80, the petitioner was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 32,50,140. An appeal against the assessment order filed by the assessee having been dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, which by its order dated Novem...
Man Mohan Sharma Vs. U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ83All
ORDERN.L. Ganguli, J.1. This petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce resignation letter dated October 7, 1991 and quash the same, besides the relief that the respondents be directed not to deny duty and wages of the post to the petitioner without complying the provisions of law and to pay entire salary to the petitioner w.e.f. December 1, 1991. According to the petitioner's allegations itself, the petitioner was initially appointed as a labourer in the U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). In December, 1986, he was promoted to the post of Helper, after 8 months of his initial appointment. No letter of appointment was issued to him. He continued to work as 'Karigar' (operative) with the respondents. A copy of the attendance card issued by respondent No. 2 in the month of October, 1991, has been filed as annexure. It is stated that the petitioner was elected Vice-President of the Union of the workmen of t...
Abdul Ahad Vs. Smt. Nasreen Bano
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ688
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. It appears that after a short period of marriage, unfortunately a dispute arose between the parties which ultimately led the respondent to file an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. Lucknow. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, by order dated 25-1-1990, allowed the application with a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - per month to the respondent towards maintenance from the date of application. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant Abdul Ahad, the husband of the respondent has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.Obviously the case of the respondent was that she was being ill-treated and tortured by the appellant and ultimately turned out of the house by him on 15-3-1982. The marriage between the parties had taken place only in June, 1981. The applicant, namely, the respondent also made allegations that the appellant used to...
VipIn Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ671All
V. Bahuguna, J.1. The petitioners are working as Class III employees in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and the Government Advocate, in the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow. The petitioners have been continuously working since the year 1988-89. The grievance is that they are being paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day whereas the salary payable to regular Class III employees is in the scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been continuously working on daily wages since the year 1988 and that there is no difference in the nature of duties performed by the petitioners and the regular Class III employees.2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been contended that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in spite of the Government order and as such they are not entitled to be regularised in service and paid the wages of regular employees. The Advocate General by his letter dated 24th July, 1990, addressed to...
Surendra Nath Rai Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Union and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ166All; (1992)1UPLBEC479
Bhat, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the continuous service of the petitioner and with live functioning of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk. The petitioner seeks further directions for regularisation of his services.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as junior clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550 in the office of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ghazipur. Vide order dated 10.10.83 he is said to have joined his duties on 22.10.83 in the Regional Office at Moradabad. His appointment was ad hoc but the said appointment was continued from time to time and he was still in service. By a subsequent order the petitioner is said to have joined in the office of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Deoria. He was actually transferred to Ghazipur where he joined on 23.7.88. The petitioner is said to have served continuously for more than 240 days in a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »