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.
Shyam Lal Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ855All
P.P. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, Shyam Lal, was appointed as a Safai Karamchari by the Municipal Board, Rampur, respondent No. 3. He is presently posted as Safai Naib (Safai Supervisor). At the time of his appointment, it is said, the petitioner submitted a declaration form (Annexure IV to the petition) declaring his date of birth as May 4, 1929. Apart from this declaration, there was no other proof of his age. Since he had not passed High School or any equivalent examination, there was no certificate recording his date of birth.2. In or about the year 1963, dispute arose regarding the correct date of birth of Class IV employees of whom there was no written record regarding their dates of birth. Respondent No. 1 took a decision that all such Class IV employees be required to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Rampur for medical examination of their age, who in turn was required to certify their age and the age so certified would be the dates of birth of such employees. In pursuance of t...
indodan Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(43)LC717(Allahabad)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India.2. An order dated 30.5.1990 was passed against the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Muzaffarnagar demanding a sum of Rs. 3,80,519.04. Against this demand the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Ghaziabad on 20.8.1990. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also moved an application with a request that the condition of pre-deposit of the above-mentioned amount of duty be kindly waived and the department should be restrained so as not to press the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal.3. In the petition it has been stated that the application made by the petitioner for waiver of the pre-deposit has already been filed but orders have not been passed on the stay application of the petitioner.4. Petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the fact that the application for waiver of the pre-de...
Badri Prasad Vs. Bhartiya State Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas247(All)
B. Dikshit, J. 1. This revision by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order dated January 4, 1992, passed by the court below in an execution case.2. Heard counsel for revisionist. Learned counsel argued that the court below has wrongly refused to fix instalments in the present case of execution of the decree which power it has under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Civil Procedure Code. The argument is that there was no objection by the decree-holder and, therefore, the court below had to fix the instalments. I am not inclined to accept this argument. Under Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the consent of the decree-holder must be express. Merely because the decree-holder did not file any objection to the application, the revisionist does not get any right for claiming payment of the decrectal amount in instalments. The judgment-debtor cannot be allowed to make payment in instalments by considering the non-filing of objections to be an implied consent of the decree holder...
Herbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(All)125; [1992]198ITR554(All)
A.N. Verma, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent, we dispose of this petition finally.2. A notice dated September 13, 1991, was served on the petitioner by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Within one month of the service of the notice, according to a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner filed its return a true copy of which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit.3. By a letter dated November 15, 1991, the petitioner asked the respondent to disclose the reasons recorded for reopening of the case. The respondent refused to disclose the reasons, vide its letter dated November 10, 1991, stating that the only requirement under law was that the reasons should be recorded before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, and that provision having been complied with by recording the reasons, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, who has issued the notice was not obliged to disclose ...
National Glass Silicate and Chemical Works Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(All)208; [1992]198ITR733(All)
A.N. Verma J.1. Against a notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner came to this court by way of a petition which was disposed of by our order dated December 17, 1991, The objection raised before the court on that occasion was that no amount was payable by the petitioner to Surendra Chand Bansal and that no loan was ever taken by him from the latter. In support, the petitioner relied on his affidavit already filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. As the court thought that the dispute was yet to be investigated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, it disposed of the petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's objection and affidavit filed on its behalf and decide it within a stated time. Pursuant to that direction, the petitioner's objection was considered and, by the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner, Income tax, has dismissed the same.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to ch...
Sri Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC1(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. The petitioner assails the validity of the order dated October 29, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Special Investigation Branch ('SIB', for short), Allahabad, directing the petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards the release of the chassis of a truck which had earlier been seized by him in the purported exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The ground stated for seizure shortly is that the petitioner had obtained transit pass in form XXXIV on the false representation that the chassis was in transit through the State of Uttar Pradesh and was being taken to his residence at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh whereas on enquiry it was found that the real importers of the chassis were Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Allahabad, which was bringing the same for sale within the State without obtaining the declaration forms XXXI and XXXII. Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was thereby clearly breached.2. The relevant ...
Kumari Kaniz Fatema Alias Suduhi Vs. Syed Sarvar HusaIn Rizvi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3427
ORDERK.C. Bhargava, J.1. This is a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The allegations, briefly stated, are that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Shaveeh Zehra alias Nishat at the time of the marriage did not know that opposite party No. 1 Syed Sarvar Husain Rizvi has also married earlier. The petitioner's mother was married to opposite party No. 1 on 10-5-1984 at Lucknow, and a dowry was also given. The petitioner was born on 25-12-1985. The opposite party No. 1 started making demands from his first wife which was not complied with, hence she was divorced by opposite party No. 1. As the parties are Shia the alleged divorce is not binding and the first wife still continues to be the wife of opposite party No. 1. After the birth of the petitioner, the opposite party No. 1 started neglecting the petitioner's mother. The opposite party No. 1 used to call girls in absence of his parents. The opposite party No. 1 forced the petitioner's mother to cook f...
Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1247
Om Prakash, J.1. The short controversy in this petition is whether respondents are entitled to recover collection charges at the rate of 10% in view of the Circular dated 30.8.1975 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition] issued by the respondent No. 1 or at the rate of 3.75% as averred by the petitioner.2. The facts as succinctly stated, are that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the recovery of loan taken by the petitioner from U. P. Financial Corporation and from the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd. For the recovery of loan, citation (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued. But the recovery proceedings were withdrawn without resorting to sale. The citations (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is now confined to collection charges sought to be recovered at the rate of 10% which has been disputed by the petitioner.3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and. therefore, the fact that the recovery proceedings were w...
Amjum Hasan Siddiqui Vs. Smt. Salma B.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All322; II(1992)DMC1
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. An order passed by the Family Court repelling the appellant plea regarding lack of Family Courts jurisdiction to decide respondent's application under S. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act hereafter) is under, challenge in this appeal. The appellant (husband) before us has urged that such an application was not enterlainable by the Family Court and the impugned order was illegal for want of jurisdiction. This submission is countered by the respondent on the plea that the Family Court had jurisdiction in the matter under S. 7 thereof.2. We have considered the rival submission and we are of the view that the contention of the appellant must prevail.3. Admittedly the proceedings have been initiated on an application captioned under S. 3 of the 1986 Act. It is true that mere caption cannot be conclusive of the matter and substance of the applications is more material and important. The allegations made in the application arc t...
Deep Chand Vs. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ665
M.P. Singh, J.1. An accident took place of on 11.12.1982 at 3.00 p.m. in Allahabad, Rajendra Bahadur Singh aged about 30 years died as a result of the same leaving behind Arti Devi, widow, two daughters Archna and Kalpana aged 11 and 21 years respectively and two minor sons Arunendra Pratap and Ravendia Pratap.2. A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. The case set up was that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. URA 2798. It was dismissed in default on 28.3.1984. A restoration application was filed. It was allowed on 6.11.1984 on payment of costs. The order was passed after hearing counsel for both the parties and in their presence.3. The next date fixed in the case was 19.2.1985. Mr. U.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioner, appeared and accepted Rs. 50/- as costs. The petitioner was also present.4. Thereafter the petitioner did not appear on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »