Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1993]76CompCas23(All)
Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties present on two matters in detail : (a) on the matter relating to the state of the present proceedings after filing of Special Appeal No. 15 of 1991, and (b) what should be the proceedings henceforth before this court. 2. The special appeal was filed on May 4, 1991. It was filed against the proceedings as recorded by this court dated March 26, 1991, regarding a proposed compromise. The case remained pending awaiting the result of the compromise, should there be any. The only aspect on the record of the special appeal which is relevant for this court is the interim order which had been granted. It is reproduced below : ' 'Respondents' counsel not present though served. In the circumstances, the recording of compromise in O. S. No. 561 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, is stayed for a period of two weeks, if not already recorded. List the special appeal on 17th May, 1991. (Sd.) B.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD436(All.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively are taken together for the sake of convenience since they relate to the same assessee and common issues are involved.2. In ITA No. 2117 (All.)/1990, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT (A) has erred in treating the subsidy received to the appellant from Government of India under a specific scheme Janta Cloth Scheme of the Government as revenue receipt. 3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the claim of exemption under Section 10(17B) in respect of subsidy received to the appellant from Government. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 10(2) and 10(23BB) of the Income-tax. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of shortage of silk yarn amounting to Rs. 67,934. 6. That the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All368
ORDER1. The petitioners filed a suit forpermanent injunction against the respondents for restraining them from interferring with their possession over the plot in dispute. A temporary injunction application was also filed, and an injunction was granted by the order dt. 4-9-90. Subsequently the suit was dismissed for default on 8-1-91. Thereafter a restoration application was filed, and subsequently an order dt. 15-2-91 (Annexure IV) was passed by the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction. Against the order dt. 15-2-91 the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 holding that since the suit had been dismissed for default on 8-1 -91, no temporary injunction could be granted unless the suit is restored.2. The restoration application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed for default on 2-4-91 and thereafter an application was moved to recall the order dt. 2-4-91, which is still pending.3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1993]200ITR745(All)
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'(1) Whether in law and on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction by admitting and allowing the miscellaneous application of the assessee when it amounted to revision of its own order which is not permissible in law, and which cannot be covered as a mistake apparent from record, which only can be rectified under Section 256(2) (2) Whether in law and on the facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the closing stock of free sugar as on August 30, 1978, should be valued at two different rates, i.e., 42,704 quintals should be valued at Rs. 85,58,293 being the amount realised on sale up to November 30, 1978, which is after the closing of the previous year and the balance sugar of 28,789 quintals should be valued at Rs. 207.86 per quintal whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3681
J.P. Semwal, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is against the order of acquittal dated 18-4-1977 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Corporation) Kanpur, acquitting the respondent-accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act).2. The respondent-accused Mohammad Wasim was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Act, for selling and exposing for sale adulterated groundnut oil on 19-9-1974 at about 1.30 p.m., in his shop on premises No. 73/33, Collector Ganj, Kanpur.3. The lower Court has not set out the facts of the case, hence it is necessary to state the facts of the case.4. Shri B. L. Shukla was Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur on 19-9-1974, and on that day at about 1.30 p.m., he found the respondent-accused, selling and exposing for sale of groundnut oil in his aforesaid shop. He took 375 grams groundnut oil as sample from a tin which contained 7 kilograms of groundnut oil, paid Rs. 3.75 to the accused and obtained re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(All)34
ORDERDR. O. N. TRIPATHI, A. M. :These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively are taken together for the sake of convenience since they relate to the same assessee and common issues are involved.2. In ITA No. 2117 (All) /1990, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee :'1. That, the appellate order is contrary to law & facts.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the subsidy received by the appellant from Government of India under a specific scheme, Janta Cloth Scheme of the Government as Revenue receipts.3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of exemption under S. 10(17B) in respect of subsidy received by the appellant from Government.4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim for exemption under S. 10(2) and 10(23BB) of the IT Act.5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of shortage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All1
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dt. Dec. 24. 1991, passed by a learned Munsif of Mahoba in a suit filed by the respondent No. 4 herein whereby he issued a temporary order of injunction restraining the Municipality of Mahoba fromholding a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the said respondent and also made a reference under S. 113 of the Civil P.C. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on behalf of the respondents, on the ground that the impugned order of injunction was an appealable one and, therefore, this court could not entertain the writ petition.2. It was, however contended by Mr. Khare appearing for the petitioner that as the suit filed by the respondent No. 4 was not maintainable, the impugned order of injunction was without any jurisdiction. Mr. Khare further submitted that the learned Munsif could not have invoked S. 113 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All331
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. The petitioner is carrying on business as a retail dealer in kerosene oil under a licence which is valid up to December 31, 1992. Alleging some irregularities in his shop the licensing authority has cancelled the licence. Aggrieved thereby he has filed the present writ petition.2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed.3. Coming now to the merits of the case, we find that the petitioner has averred inhis writ petition that before the licence was cancelled he was not given any opportunity of being heard. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All337
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, C.J.The petitioner, who happens to be a fair price shop owner, challenges an order dated 14-1-1992, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Ghaziabad, whereby the operation of the shop has been suspended anddirection has been issued for production of relevant records relating to the shop. On a perusal of the impugned order, we are in complete agreement with the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the same cannot be legally sustained having regard to the fact that it does not contain any material or reasons which weighed with the issuing authority to suspend the operation of the shop. Apart from the delightful vague expression that certain irregularities were found, there is nothing in the impugned order to justify the suspension. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order and direct the authority concerned to recall any order that might have been passed pursuant to the said order of suspension.2. By way of abund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All367
ORDER1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant and Sri Haider Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite parties, at length and in detail.2. The plaintiff opposite parties instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Varanasi original Suit No. 26 of 1983 against the defend ant-revisionist. In the said suit the opposite parties claimed, inter alia, a decree of ejectment against the revisionist. The claim for the decree of ejectment was based on the allegation that the revisionist was the tenant in the disputed house whereof the plaintiff-opposite parties claimed to be the owner-landlords. Denying the title of the plaintjff-opposite parties and asserting himself to be the owner of the disputed house, the defendant revisionist urged the Court below to return the plaint of the suit. In support of the prayer for return of the plaint, the defendant-revisionist placed reliance on the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Cour...
Tag this Judgment!