Allahabad Court May 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.
Barkau Alias Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2954
I.S. Mathur, J.1. This appear is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1979, passed by IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, convicting the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life.2. Appellant Barkau alias Raj Kumar is the son of Ram Kishan alias Bankey. Raj Kumar was a tenant in the premises in town Bithoor belonging to Thakur Laxmi Narainji of which deceased Som Prakash was the manager. A dispute arose between Raj Kumar and deceased Som Prakash as a result of which a suit for eviction was filed which was ultimately decreed, and Ram Kishan was directed to be evicted Som Prakash got the possession of that premises on 28-1-1976 through court after the dismissal of first appeal No. 366 of 1973. The second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on 4-12-76. After eviction, Barkau, along with his younger brother Gopal, started residing in a Khandahar in town Bithoor.3. Ram Narain, the uncle of Som Prakash deceas...
Herbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR84(All); [1993]66TAXMAN174(All)
1. This petition is directed against a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued in respect of the assessment year 1980-81, It seems that the return submitted by the assessee for that year was accepted under Section 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act. By a notice under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner was called upon to file a fresh return of its income for the year in question, inasmuch as its income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act, In compliance with the notice under Section 148, the petitioner filed the return as required by the said notice. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner addressed a letter to the Assessing Officer that the reopening of the case was not justified and, hence, the notice under Section 143 was liable to be vacated. The petitioner wrote another letter requesting the Assessing O...
Ram Gopal Sharma Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All124
ORDERAn ex parte order dated 16-4-1979 was passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 104 of 1978 decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was filed by one Sri Ratan Prakash along with 5 others, namely, Smt. Ram Murti Devi, widow of late Sri Shiv Shanker, Jagannath Prakash, Narendra Kumar, Virendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar, minor, all sons of Sri Shiv Shanker. Aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 16-4-1979, the petitioner-tenant filed Revision No. 258 of 1979. During the pendency of the revision, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application on 24-7-1980 to the effect that opposite party NO. 4 in Revision, namely, Narendra Kumar had died on 3-12-1979. As the heirs and legal representatives had not been substituted, the revision is liable to be abated. The petitioner filed objections and alleged that on the death of one of the opposite parties who is co-owner/co-landlord, the revision would not abate as the right to sue survives to other...
Sri Naresh Kumar Kansal and Others Vs. Nagar Palika, Deoband, Dist. Sa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All161
ORDERR. A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioners, who are members of Municipal Board, Deoband, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Board), have filed this writ petition challenging the resolution dated 15-2-1992, whereby a committee known as 'Devi Kund Fair Committee' of five members has been appointed by the Board.2. Parties have exchanged the affidavits and we have heard the learned counsellor the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that the members of the committee constituted by the Board by Regulation can be elected by single transferable vote in accordance with method prescribed by clause (b) of subsection (1) of S. 104 of U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act); but in the instant case the appointment of the members of the committee has been made in contravention of the aforesaid provision. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned resolution on two grounds; firstly, the appointments of the members of only seven committees, reference ...
Ramji Singh Vs. the District Magistrate, Ghazipur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All335
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner, Ram Ji Singh, has prayed for quashing the order dated 11-10-1991, passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, by which the petitioner's Arms Licence No. 1046/80 for a single Barrelgun bearing number 8897 was suspended and he was called upon to show cause also within 15 days from the date of the order as to why his licence may not be cancelled. Instead of showing any cause to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. Despite sufficient time having been granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the leanred Standing Counsel were heard at length at the stage of admission and the record of the case 3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the Arms Act there is no provisions for suspending the arms licence pending enquiry regarding cancellation/suspension of the licence. Reliance was placed on a ...
Vivek Sharma Vs. the District Judge, Aligarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All115
ORDER1. The petitioner filed a suit for partition in respect of the disputed property claiming 1/24th share in the same. He also claimed a declaration that the sale deed executed by respondents Nos. 8 to 18 (defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in the suit) executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (defendant Nos. 12to 17 in the suit) be declared null and void, and a prohibitory injunction be issuedagainst the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession or raising any construction and changing the nature of the land. Petitioner's case was that the disputed property belonged to his paternal grand father Chittar Mal, who prior to his death In 1960 had executed a will in favour of his wife Smt. Kundania by which he bequeathed the aforesaid property to her. Smt. Kundania died in 1975, and it is alleged that thereafter the property which was initially self-acquired property of Chittar Mal fell in the notch pot of the joint Hindu family and the petitioner got 1/24th sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›