Allahabad Court September 1992 Judgments
Smt. Anju Sharma Vs. Sri Suresh Chand JaIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All109
ORDERG.D. Dube, J, 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Civil Judge, Mathura, rejecting an application for temporary injunction.2. A suit No. 120 of 1984 was filed by respondent No. I against respondents 2 and 3 and Manju Goswami, daughter of Shyam Kishan Goswami, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Mathura. This suit was decreed ex parte on 27-5-1985. As against this order, an application under Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C. was moved by the respondents 2 and 3. Thiswas rejected on 17-2-1986. The respondents 2 and 3 preferred a revision before the District Judge, Mathura. This revision was rejected on 22-1-1987. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 moved Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1987. Jai Kishan Goswami v. District Judge, Mathura. This writ petition was rejected on 12-5-1992. The High Court allowed three months time to respondents 2 and 3 to vacate the premises, provided they furnished adequate undertaking before the Court of Judge, Small Causes. Despite this und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Biscuit Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR205(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that two separate assessments be made for the assessment year 1976-77, one for the period from April 1, 1975, to September 30, 1975,and the other for the period October 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, and not the assessment as made by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The brief facts are that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, to which the dispute pertains, up to September 30, 1975, the assessee-firm was comprised of four partners which included two minors admitted to the benefits of partnership. With effect from September 30, 1975, the minors admitted to the benefits of partnership retired from the firm. The remaining two partners ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shantanu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All85; (1993)1UPLBEC221
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the 1992 Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination for filling up M.D./M.S. seats in all the seven Medical Colleges of the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. For the Post Graduate Medical Examinations of 1992 the petitioner was one of the candidates, who appeared in the Examination held on 11th of January 1992 and was allotted Roll No.4181 and secured 748 marks out of 3000. The petitioner has challenged the fairness and validity of the examination and its subsequent result on the following grounds:1. That 49 questions were leaked out prior to the examination. 2. That securing 50% marks in the PG MEE was neither a prevailing practice in the 'State of U. P. before the commencement of the competitive test nor this 50% bar was imposed by the Supreme Court while introducing residency scheme on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India which was approved and accepted by the State of U. P. few years back and as such 50% criterion...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Prasad Vs. U.P. Service Tribunal No. Iv and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1All; (1993)1UPLBEC251
ORDERM.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the State. In terms of Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations relating to pension, his pension has been reduced to 50 per cent. The petitioner had challenged the impugned order of reduction in pension as also the snow cause notice issued to him for the proposed reduction, before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed his claim petition by its order dated August 31, 1982. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated April 4, 1980 as also the judgment of respondent No. 1 dated August 31, 1982, in this writ petition.2. Clause (b) of Article 470 of the Regulations reads as under:-'If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.'3. The authorities have invoked the aforesaid provision of the Regulations to effect reduction in the petitioner's pension. It is advantageous to give brief resume of the facts w...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Athar Ali Vs. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Te ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All166
ORDER1. Name of the petitioner, who is in service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Live-stock Extension Officer was sponsored by the State Government along with the names of four other candidates, for admission to Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry course conducted by Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the University). The University although admitted the four persons sponsored by the State Government but declined to do so in the case of the petitioner on the ground that he is not eligible for being admitted to the above course. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the above order.2. The University has filed counter-affidavit in reply to the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.3. Eligibility qualifications for admission to the aforesaid course are as follows:'(i) 55% marks in aggregate in Intermed...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Daud Alias Mohd. Saleem Vs. Superintendent of District Jail a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1358
A.B. Srivastava, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in relation to one and the same matter filed on different dates, hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The writ petition No. 10870 of 1991 was filed on 15-4-1991 for mandamus directing the Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad not to transfer the petitioner from the said jail to Bombay in pursuance of warrants received from the City Sessions Court Greater Bombay and to release him the moment he receives release order in Crime No. 96 of 1983 under Sections 392/397, IPC. P. S. Hazrat Nagar Garhi, Moradabad. It was admitted on 1-10-191.3. By means of the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 24268 of 1991 filed on 12-9-1991 the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Superintendent District Jail, Moradabad and State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively to release the petitioner from detention in the District Jail, Moradaba...
Tag this Judgment!Malkhan Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1145
1. Appellants Malkhan Singh, Ujagar Singh and Narendra Singh have come in appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-2-1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in S.T. No. 258 of 1978-State v. Malkhan Singh and Ors. under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution, as was unfolded in the evidence of Munnu Singh PW 1, may briefly be stated as follows.3. One Sardar Singh of village Ubhai P.S. Aliganj district Etah had four sons viz. Tilak Singh, accused Ujagar Singh, accused Malkhan Singh and Natthu Singh. Tilak Singh is the deceased while accused Narendra Singh is the son of accused Malkhan Singh. Munnu Singh PW 1, the first informant, is the son of Natthu Singh. Thus, it is obvious that the first informant, the deceased and the three accused are descendants from Sardar Singh.4. For two-three years before the occurrence of this case, the deceased Tilak Singh was residing with Munnu Singh PW 1. Tilak Singh had about 33-34 Bighas land. He want...
Tag this Judgment!Quazi Neemat Ullah Vs. 6th Addl. Dist. Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All126
ORDER1. These are two petitions arising out of the same matter. As such, they are consolidated to be taken up for disposal by a common order as assented to by the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Matrix of the facts is that Majid Ali, petitioner is Writ Petition No. 15312 of 1992, instituted a suit, it being suit No. 88 of 1988, in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Gorakhpur for the relief of eviction of the petitioner, Qazi Nemat Ullah from the suit premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits. The suit ended in being decreed ex parte by means of the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1988 as a consequence of which, the decree holder was put in possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree, on6-11-1989. An application under p. 9, R. 13 C.P.C. came to be filed by petitioner Qazi Nemat Ullah on 10-11-1989 seeking recall of the aforesaid decree granted ex parte. The application was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside by means of the or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Ram Devendra Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(All)266; [1993]204ITR706(All); [1993]66TAXMAN327(All)
R.K Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the term 'total income' used in Section 271(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, means total income as disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee or the total amount of income as finally computed in the manner laid down in this Act, as defined in Section 2(45) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the penalty order under Section 271(1)(a) was barred by limitation and the amendment brought about in Section 275 by Act No. 42 of 1970 was not applicable in this case, even though the penalty proceedings were pending before the Income-tax Officer when ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murlidhar Kanodia and Sons (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR760(All)
1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the interest paid on the loan of Rs. 1,50,000 as a deduction under Section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts, briefly, are that the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, owned a building, namely, Kanodia Commercial Building, Kanpur, which was mortgaged on December 11, 1951, in favour of Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Kanpur, against a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 taken for being invested in 'disposal business'. A charge in regard to interest on such loan liability was created on the aforesaid property which was mortgaged and the assessee claimed deduction of such interest liability under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »