Allahabad Court November 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.
Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dehradun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All176
ORDER1. These are four connected petitions directed against judgment and order dated 8-9-1983, whereby eviction of the tenant from the premises known as Minerva Castle previously known as Jura House situate at Kulri, Mussoorie and release thereof in favour of the respondent-landlord under S.21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act'), was directed by the Prescribed Authority and also against the appellate order dated 10-2-1989, dismissing the tenant's appeal and affirming the judgment and order contemplating eviction and release passed by the Prescribed Authority, The petition filed by Sri Mahendra Pal Singh, being writ petition No. 2791 of 1989, shall be treated as the leading case in the set of the present petitions.2. The matrix of the facts, in so far as it may be found relevant for the purposes of discussion of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is set out as below.Late Sri K.R. Bahugu...
Sanjay Dixit Vs. Ravindra Anand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC719
P.D. Naolekar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the award passed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 29th June, 1987. It is contend by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the final award in the case was passed without giving full opportunity to the appellant to prove his case. On perusal of the order-sheet of the Tribunal, the contention raised by the appellant is found to be correct.2. On 28.1.1987 the order-sheet recorded that the appellant was given further opportunity to produce further evidence in the case and the matter was fixed for 31.3.1987. On 24.3.1987 the Counsels for the appellant moved an application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was directed to be put up on 31.3.1987 and the Counsel for the non-applicant. Thereafter the arguments were heard on that application on 10.4.1987. The case was adjourned for orders for 17.4.1987. On 17.4.1987, 23.4.1987 and 4.5.1987 the order was not ready and, therefore, matter was adjou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR265(All)
1. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of ,Rs. 79,300 on account of contribution to the employees' gratuity fund even though the gratuity fund was not approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax as required under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner and Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. 3. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1974-75, the accounting period for which had ended on September 30, 1973. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 75,930 as an expenditure representing its contribution to the employees' gratuity fund. The Income-tax Offic...
Ajai Kumar Tomar Vs. Raj NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2547
ORDERJ.P. Semwal, J.1. By the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing the complaint bearing No. 1771 of 1982, Raj Narain and R.K. Nayyar v. Ajai Kumar Qumar, under Section 420/406, I.P.C. pending against him in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Raipurwa, Kanpur.2. I have heard Sri Tapan Ghosh, learned Counsel for the opposite parties as well as Sri A.K. Misra, Addl. Govt. Advocate, Though list has been revised twice but none has appeared on behalf of the applicant.3. The grounds taken in the present application inter alia are that the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and that on the own allegations of the complainant no case under Section 420/406, I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and at the most it is a case of Civil liability, that the court cannot take into consideration or peruse already dismissed complaint case while summoning the accused on the basis of second complaint and that the trial court has no ...
Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT183(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.N. Sharma, Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks mandamus directing the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad respondent No. 2 to dispose of ten appeals and the stay application filed by the petitioner on 22nd June, 1992 and 3rd August, 1992 respectively relating to the period November, 1990 to September, 1992 and further staying the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 28th July, 1992 and 2nd September, 1992. The petitioner has raised number of grounds reasserting that appeals are liable to be allowed in view of the fact that appeals for earlier years stand allowed and also in view of the principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, we would not like to go into the merits of the case but we do feel that since the stay application has already been filed by the petitioner as aforesaid and ...
Shyam Lal Biri Merchant Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993LC9(Allahabad); 1994(69)ELT487(All)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In view of learned Counsel for the parties agreeing the present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.3. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 22nd September, 1992 (Annexure A-6 to the writ petition) and directing the concerned respondent to accept Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- instead of cash deposit. The petitioner for this purpose filed earlier writ petition in this Court which was disposed of with the direction that petitioner to comply with the Tribunal orders within a period of one month. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner on account of the financial condition to which the Tribunal has not adverted, he is not able to make the said payment in cash. The petitioner has further urged that he is ready to deposit Rs. 30,000/- in cash and Bank Guarantee for the balance of Rs. 50,000/-. To this learned Counsel for the respondent, S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›