Allahabad Court January 1993 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.
Abdul Aziz and Others Vs. District Judge, Rampur and Anothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1993
Reported in: AIR1994All167; MANU/UP/0029/1994
ORDER1. Heard Sri R.S. Verma, appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Singhal, learned counsel representing Harish Chandra, the contesting respondent No. 3.2. The order dated 18th January, 1985 passed by the Munsif, Court No. 1, Rampur in Execution No. 31 of 1978 rejecting the objection of the petitioners filed under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. 1908, hereinafter called the Code, and the order and judgment dated 27th April, 1985 passed by the District Judge, Rampur in Civil Revision No. 28 of 1985 under Section 115 of the Code, affirming the aforesaid order of the Munsif, are underchallenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The contesting respondent No. 3 obtained a decree for specific performance against Abdul Habib alias Abdul Ahmad, the pro forma respondent No. 4, on 16th August, 1973. Before the decree could be executed the pro forma respondent No. 4 transferred the property, which was the subject matter of the decree, in favour of Mohd. Sharif and A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agra Wines
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1993
Reported in: [1993]201ITR875(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal gives rise to any statable question of law. The order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the Income-tax Officer rightly refused registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1983-84 on the finding that no genuine firm had come into existence. The registration was refused on two grounds, namely, (i) that two of the lady partners had not contributed any capital, and (ii) that these partners were ignorant of the affairs of the firms. On appeal, the order of the Income-tax Officer did not find favour with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that there was no legal requirement that every partner of a firm should contribute capital and merely because some partners were ignorant of certain affairs of the firm, was no ground to...
Dukhi Ram and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2539
ORDERA.B. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of orders to summon them for offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Charge-sheet was submitted by the police against four persons being the husband of the first informant and his family members. The applicants were not sent up for want of evidence. The learned Magistrate differing with the police report summoned the applicants also for offence under Section 498-A.2. Learned counsel for parties have been heard.3. A perusal of Section 498A, IPC would show that it is confined to the offence of subjecting a woman to cruelty by the husband or relative of husband. The applicants admittedly are not relatives of the husband rather are co-villagers. Consequently summoning them for offence under Section 498A, IPC amounts to abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed.4. The orders dated 9-5-1991 of the learned Magistrate and dated 7-9-1991 of the Sessions Judge are a...
Mahendra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2573
ORDERA.B. Srivastava, J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 19-12-1992 of the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Bulandshahr recalling his order dated 18-12-1992 allowing the bail plea of the applicant, this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed.2. The application for bail was moved without serving copy on the public prosecutor and was disposed of by the Special Judge without notice to the prosecutor. On the mistake being detected, the recall order was passed, the application directed to be posted for hearing on merits, and non-bailable warrant issued.3. The contentions of the applicant that it was not necessary to give notice to prosecutor and the order could not be recalled without cancellation application being moved, are untenable. Notice to prosecution to oppose the bail application is mandatory under Section 12A of the E. C. Act as amended in U. P. under law a Court not only has power but is duty bound to recall an order which is a result of mistake of Court.4. Consequently th...
Sardar Kripal Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1993
Reported in: [1993]201ITR563(All)
1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondents.2. House Nos. 7/113, Swarup Nagar (Pritam Niwas), Kanpur, along with land appurtenant thereto, of which the petitioner is one of the co-owners, is under attachment for realisation of income-tax and a sale proclamation, a photostat copy whereof is annexure I to the petition, has been issued. The sale is scheduled to take place tomorrow, i.e., on January 12, 1993.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tax Recovery Officer is likely to sell the entire house under attachment together with land appurtenant thereto whereas the recovery may be satisfied by selling a portion thereof. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the proclamation has not been made in accordance with law. In substance, the petitioner complains of violation of Rules 52 and 54 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. It cannot be disputed that the provisions ...
Shiraj Sunfix Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1993
Reported in: [1993]201ITR457(All)
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the concerned Income-tax Officer who has issued notices under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', in relation to the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, is biased, and on account of the bias, she is not permitting inspection of the relevant records for the purpose of knowing the reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, is not disposing of its transfer application under Section 127 of the Act, moved in October, 1992. The prayer, therefore, is that this court may direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, to dispose of the transfer application and also direct the Income-tax Officer to permit inspection of the relevant records.3. After hear...
Ram Babu Singh Vs. Addl. Director General of Police, Anti-corruption a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1253
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Babu Singh challenging the F.I.R. giving rise to case Crime No. 240 of 1988 purported to be under Sections 218, 32 and 120B, I.P.C.2. The prayer in the writ petition is that the said F.I.R. as well as further investigation therein may be quashed. It may be mentioned here that petitioner-Ram Babu Singh was an Inspector-in-charge of Police Station Lal Kurti, Meerut during the year 1985-86. During his tenure a case crime No. 491 of 1985, under Sections 152/295, I.P.C. was registered at the behest of Dr. V.B. Chauhan, Principal, Meerut College, Meerut. This was followed up by a supplementary F.I.R. of the same day. This case was investigaged by Rakesh Babu Yadav, Sub-Inspector working at the Police Station. It is stated in the writ petition that the informant Rajbir Singh and another resident of the locality namely Dhiraj Singh were interrogated at the police station relating to the said case crime. It has been further stated in the writ pet...
Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ557All; (1993)1UPLBEC322
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Vide Government Order dated November 7, 1990 Family Court at Agra was established for the period upto February 28, 1991. For that Court 13 posts, including six posts of Class IV employees, were sanctioned and these posts were also to continue upto February 28, 1991. The petitioner appeared in the test for appointment to the post of copyist on ad hoc basis and was selected and appointed ad hoc copyist in the Family Court at Agra on April 12, 1991. There was also a post of stenographer for the Court and no stenographer having been selected, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as stenographer vide order dated May 1, 1991 for fixed term upto June 30, 1991, with the condition that the appointment of the petitioner will come to an end automatically on June 30, 1991, if not terminated earlier. It was also stipulated in the appointment letter that the service of the petitioner can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Service of the petitioner, as steno...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›