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.
E. Sefton and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT626(All)
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 13th February, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The order dated 13-2-1979 had been served on the petitioner on 15-2-1979. The appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. The period of limitation for filing the appeal prescribed under Section 35 of the Act as it stood at that time was only three months. The aforesaid appeal, which had been filed on 28-5-1979 was therefore barred by eleven days on the date of its filing. In this view of the matter, the petitioner prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal itself.2. The Appellate Authority rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the stat...
Kanti Swaruoop Sharma Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD246(All.)
1. It is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 6-2-1987 for the assessment year 1984-85. The following grounds have been taken up :- 1. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities below have erred in holding that it is not a case of diversion of income by an overriding title. 2. Because the authorities below have not appreciated correctly the merits of the case and have erred in taking an arbitrary view. 3. Because at any rate, the assessee had no volition to apply the proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,50,000 and as such the same could to be considered in the hands of the assessee. 4. Because, in law, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 diverted away at source since having paid by the purchaser directly to bank and in view of property being under equitable mortgage, the assessee cannot be made liable to any extent w.r.t. the sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 5. Because, without prejudice, the computation of capital gains is unfounded, arbitrary and bias...
Manu Udyog (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(43)LC689(Allahabad)
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India. In the instant case two orders were passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, one on 30.7.1991 and the other on 1.8.1991 demanding duty and penalty from the petitioner. Against both these orders, the petitioner filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The petitioner also filed applications for stay of the demand made by the impugned orders. In these appeals, the Tribunal has fixed 29.1.1992 and 13.2.1992 for disposal of the stay applications.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that before the disposal of the stay applications, the Superintendent, Central Excise Range-II, Agra has attached its goods seeking recovery of the amount demanded from it by the orders dated 30.7.1991 and 1.8.1991. Since the petitioner had already filed appeals against the impugned orders along with stay...
Mangal Prasad Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All235
ORDER1. Sri Satyadeo Lal, who is arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition filed, Suit No. 32 of 1985 in the court of the Civil Judge, Basti for partition of the disputed house and sehan inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers, they have inherited the disputed property after the death of their father and purchased the land jointly shown by letters d] [k] x] ?k] N- Since there is a dispute between the two brothers regarding their shares, it has become necessary to get the property divided by metes and bounds. The suit was contested by Mangal Prasad, who filed a written statement and, inter alia, contended that the property has already been partitioned by metes and bounds in the year 1978 and a memo of partition has also been executed between the parties on 27-3-78. This alleged memo of partition embodying the factum of partition was filed on behalf of defendant Mangal Prasad in the suit. The plaintiff filed an application on 5-3-1986 sa...
Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Limited Vs. U.P. State Electricity ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All247; [1992]75CompCas672(All)
ORDERV.K. khanna, J.1. Petitioner Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Modi-nagar is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Modinagar and is running a textile manufacturing unit. For the purposes of running its unit it gets its electrical energy from the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) under an agreement executed between the parties. The dispute in the present writ petition centres round the question as to whether the Board can disconnect the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner's textile mills in exercise of its power u/ S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act after the petitioner's unit has been declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. Brief admitted facts for the purposes of adjudication of the question raised in the present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Pet...
Mohammad Yameed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1804
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. The short question for consideration in the present criminal revision is as to whether an order Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. though passed before the coming into force of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the Muslim Women's Act) can still be executed?2. It is undisputed that the opposite party Smt. Latifan was the legally married wife of Mohd. Yameed applicant. On the allegations that the husband had neglected to maintain her as also the child an application Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was moved before the magistrate for herself as also for her child on 16-2-84. The magistrate after taking evidence directed payment of maintenance allowance to the divorced wife at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. On the further allegation that the husband had not complied with the said order and did not make the payment of the maintenance allowance Smt. Latifan made an application on 24-1-1990 Under Section 128, Cr. P.C. before the magistrate co...
Sri Mahabirji Mandir Committee Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2132
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. Sri Mahabirji Mandir Committee, Aminabad Park, Lucknow, through its General Secretary Ashok Kumar Pathak, Petitioner through this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. initiated against him vide Annexure 3 on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. specially when the fact of possession of the petitioner was not disputed and further that the Civil Court being seized of the matter to resort to these proceedings was not justified and is abuse of the process of law.2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the application moved by opposite party No. 2 Devendra Lal Shah before the Magistrate contained in Annexure 3 are that the temple known as Mahabirji Temple is an old temple and it was being managed by a committee of respectable persons. It is also alleged that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Pathak had constituted a certain committee and the question of validity of the said committee has been chal...
Bishambhar and Another Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Azamgarh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All178; [1992(65)FLR888]
ORDER1. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 50 of 1980 before the trial court praying for a relief of injunction directing the defendants to remove the tube well fixed in the plot in dispute and also forpermanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over a number of plots mentioned in the plaint on the ground that by playing fraud on the plaintiff the defendants have got fictitious entries made over the disputed plots during the consolidation proceedings. The relief of possession was also asked for in the alternative. The said suit was contested by the defendants-respondents on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which according to the defendants was cognizable only by the revenue courts. On the pleas of the parties although the trial court framed a number of issues but the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was tried as a preliminary issue. After scrutiny of the evidence...
Spool Corporation Co. (India) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR383(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is a reference which has come up before this court in pursuance of a reference order under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. The assessee had claimed deduction of sales tax for the relevant assessment year and it was allowed. Subsequently, it was discovered that, in fact, the assessee had been exempted from sales tax by the sales tax authorities. As such, the Income-tax Officer invoked Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act and added the amount which had been earlier deducted by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act.2. The assessee appealed against the order of the Income-tax Officer but the appeal was dismissed. The second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also met with the same fate. On an application under Section 256(1), the following questions have been referred to us :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate T...
Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR415(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', in pursuance of the direction issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that there was no agreement to charge interest from the parties? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that no interest accrued to the assessee in the assessment year in question?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75, The assessee is the sole selling agent of Raza Textiles Ltd., Rampur. As per its balance-sheet, the following amounts were found to have been advanced to three companies indicated below which incidentally happen to be under the same management as Raza Textiles Ltd. :Rs.1. Sir J. P. Srivastava andSons Rampur Ltd.3,26,7742. Sir f. P. Srivastava andSons (P.) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »