Allahabad Court April 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.
Ram Dhari Ram Vs. the Registrar, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Ag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All363
ORDER1. The petitioner was admitted after admission test in the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandary, Mathura in the course of B. V. Sc. and A. H. He was regular student and was allotted a room in Gautam Hostel. The petitioner passed his first year session for 1986-87, the result of which was declared in the year 1988. The petitioner thereafter appeared in main examination of second year session held in February, 1990. He passed the paper of Pharmocology, but was required to appear in Supplementary examination in 3 papers, namely Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. The supplementary examination was held in March, 1990. On 19-3-1990, the petitioner had appeared in supplementary examination of Becteriology. After getting the answer book and the question paper, he had started writing the answers. The petitioner in the writ petition stated that at10.30 a.m. the Invigilator, Dr. V. P. Singh, took one slip from the floor of the examination hall and asked the petitioner abou...
Ram Bilas Purshottam Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(All)271; [1993]201ITR11(All)
ORDER--High Court cannot go into same.HELD :The assessee urged that the quantum of penalty to which the assessee was subjected, was excessive. The quantum of penalty within the statutory limit that ought to be imposed in a given case is necessarily a question of fact to be determined by the IT Authorities. There is no sufficient material available on the basis of which the contention raised could be determined. No such plea was raised before the Tribunal. No such question was canvassed before the Tribunal nor any such question was sought by the assessee in the application under s. 256(1). The court cannot go into a question which was not raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Penalty under s. 271(1)(a)--REASONABLE CAUSE--Failure to make out--Penalty rightly determined on registered firm--Penalty to be determined after deducting advance tax from tax computed in status of URF.HELD :Sec. 271(2) provides for a contingency when the person committing defaul...
Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3058
ORDERJ.K. Mathur, J.1. By this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the applicant seeks quashing of proceedings initiated against him under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C.2. It is not disputed that proceedings under Section 107/106, Cr. P.C. are already pending against the present applicant on the basis of a report contained in annexure 1. During the pendency of these proceedings another set of proceedings are sought to be initiated against the applicant under the same provisions of law.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.4. The purpose of proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P.C. is to require a person to keep peace during the period as may be fixed by the Magistrate extending to one year. In case of imminent breach of peace apprehended, the prosecution can always move under Section 116(3), Cr.P.C. during the enquiry. Another proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P.C. even if it succeeds will again result in same order as may be passed in the earlier proceeding. The order in the ea...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shobha Devi Andey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC301
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.2. This appeal, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act', is directed against the award dated 6th December, 1979 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, hereinafter called the 'Tribunal' in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 25 of 1975 between Smt. Shobha Devi Pendey and Others and U.P. Stale Road Transport Corporation and Others.3. The claimant-respondents, who arc the heirs of the deceased Sri Narain Pandey, instituted in the Tribunal a Claim Petition under Section 110-A of the 'c' for recovery of Rs. 2,05,000/- as compensation from the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called the 'Corporation', and the driver of the bus. The deceased Sri Narain Panday, aged about 27 years, was employed as Head Master in the Junior High School ...
Dharmendra Singh Vs. the Principal, S.K. College, Chandausi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All338
ORDER1. The petitioner, Dharmendra Singh, passed his High School examination in the year 1989 in Second Division. Thereafter he passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1991 in Second Division securing 251marks out of 500. A photostat copy of the mark-sheet of the Intermediate examination is Annexure 'II' to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for admission in B.Sc. Part I giving option for the subject Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. He was, however, allowed the subjects Zoology, Botany and Military Science. His contention is that the Principal, S.M. College, Chandausi, District Moradabad, respondent, assured the petitioner that the subject 'Military Science' will be changed afterwards and at the time of admission he cannot be given the subject of Chemistry as the total marks in the Intermediate examination, secured by him were below the standard fixed for giving the subject of Chemistry which was offered to the candidates, who had secured 254 marks and above in the interme...
Kweens Bar and Restaurant Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR492]; (1993)IIILLJ170All
P.P. Gupta, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners, M/s. Kweens Bar and Restaurant, Begum Bridge, Meerut, a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.11.1991 (Annexure V to the writ petition), passed by the respondent, the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Meerut.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of Bar and Restaurant since 1950. Since the very inception of the firm, it had less than 20 persons in its employment and the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') never applied to it.3. On 26.5.1988 and 21.6.1988 the Provident Fund Inspector visited the firm of the petitioner and recorded in his inspection note that 20 persons were employed in the firm. Again on 21.6.1989, he along with Sri S.B. Prajapati, E.O., visited the p...
D.D. Vyas and Others Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All57; (1992)1UPLBEC746
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. This writ petition is an apt example as to how the statutory object to secure preservation of environment and development of the residential colonies shown in the master plan, sought 19 be achieved by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ('the Act' briefly) is defeated by the authorities, who lack dynamism, aestheticism and enthusiasm for development, though assigned the developmental duties.2. The Act, as the preamble shows, was enacted to provide for the development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. The growth in Uttar Pradesh before this enactment was quite haphazard and, therefore, the Government felt that in the developing areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh the problems of town planning and urban development need to be tackled resolutely. As existing local bodies and other authorities in spite of their best efforts were inadequate to cope with these problems to...
Hasrat and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3107
1. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing each of the appellants, namely, Hasrat, Jareef and Manglu to an imprisonment for life under 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report lodged by Mansoor Hussain (P.W. 3) at 10.25 p.m. on 29-12, 1978 in Police Station Kithore district Meerut was in respect of an occurrence which took place in village Jadaunda within the aforesaid Police Station Circle. It was alleged that the tube-well motor of the father of the maker of the report was stolen about 12-13 months before the occurrence. Anwar Hussain, father of the maker of the report had lodged a report against the appellants. The appellants had not been arrested in connection with this theft by that time. Anwar Hussain was making efforts to get them arrested. The appellants got an information about these facts. It is alleged that at abou...
U.P. State Handloom Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD208(All.)
1. The above-mentioned four appeals are taken together for the sake of convenience, since they relate to the same assessee and interdependent issues are involved.2. Common submissions were made in all the four appeals. All the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the first Appellate Authority. On behalf of the appellant, a Paper Book containing 22 pages was filed including notice under Section 142(1) dated 19-10-1984, second notice under Section 142(1) dated 24-11-1984, third notice under Section 142(1) dated 15-5-1986, reply dated 21-5-1986, reply to notices under Section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(b) copy of the assessment order, a copy of the order of the New Delhi 'A' Bench in the case of Handloom Intensive Development (Bijnore) Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 4306 to 4309 (Delhi) of 1989). The first leg of the arguments advanced before us was that penalty was discretionary. Especially arguing in ITA No. 1000(A)/1990, it was emphasised that there were 166 production centre...
Ram Kumar Bhatia and Others Vs. the State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All14
ORDEROm Prakash, J. 1. All the petitioners are tenure-holders and their different Kha-sara numbers are situate in village Brindaban Bangar, district Mathura. By a common notification issued under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly, the Act) on 30-6-1990 and published in the official gazette on 18-8-1990 acquisition proceedings to acquire their Khasra numbers as specified in the said notification for a public purpose, namely, for planned housing development in Brindaban) town, district Mathura through the Mathura Brindaban Development Authority, Mathura were initiated. Since their Khasra numbers are sought to be acquired under a common notification, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Whereas the facts of the cases of Ram Kumar Bhatia and others and Usha Devi and others and the rival submissions of the parties made therein are similar, the facts of the case of Smt. Kiran Devi are somewhat different.3. Therefore, first we deal with the cases of Ram...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »