Allahabad Court August 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.
Sri Kunj Behari and Another Vs. Sri Krishna Dutt and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994All198
ORDER1. This revision by the defendants has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7-4-1993 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Hamirpur rejecting the application No. 80-Ka filed by the defendant-revisionists for temporary injunction and clarification of the order dated 11-12-1990, in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990.2. The contesting opposite parties had filed a caveat in this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the caveators that this revision filed against the order of the appellate court is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of All 218; (1979 All LJ 685) (FB). It may be mentioned that the report of the Stamp Reporter is also to the same effect. Learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, contended that the revision in the present case is not barred and is very much maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish the Full Bench Decision.3. To appreciate the argument of the learned ...
Hari Chand Sri Gopal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: 1994(50)LC163(Allahabad)
1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of Pan Chatni. It is alleged that the petitioner has been classifying its product named Pan Chatni under Sub-heading 2103.11 of the Tariff Act and has been availing the exemption granted vide notification dated 203.1990. Subsequently the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad reviewed its previous order and reclassified the product Pan Chatni manufactured by the petitioner under Sub-heading 2107.91 and charged duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem in the terms of the notification dated 203.1990. Subsequently the petitioner was served with a notice of demand dated 24.6.1983 vide annexure 9 to the writ petition. It is against these two orders that the petitioners have come up to this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order dated 185.1993 before the appellate authority which is still pending. It is settled view of...
Sant Ram Agarwal Vs. Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1994All99
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order dated 3-10-1992, passed in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1990 Sant Ram Agarwal v. Smt. Ram Dei and others. The petitioner had filed an application numbered as 27-A and sought amendment in the written statement, filed by him in suit No, 229 of 1987. The said application for amendment was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 3-10-1992.2. It may also be relevant to indicate that suit No. 29 of 1987 was decided by the learned Munsiff, South, Lucknow on the 26th of July,1990. The application for amendment was moved at the time of the hearing of the appeal arising from the judgment in the said suit. By the said application for amendment 18 paragraphs were sought to be added to the written statement.3. Present opposite parties 2 to 4 had filed suit No. 29 of 1987 on the allegation that in the night intervening 24-25 December, 1986 the petitioner had blocked main door of premises No. 86/248 Ka Mohalla Kurmi Tola Lal Kunwan Lucknow and had covered t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tarai Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR421(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The present reference arises under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Tribunal has referred the following question to be answered by this court which is quoted as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the payment of interest amounting to Rs. 97,290 was allowable in terms of Clause (iii) of Sub-clause (1) of Section 36 of the Act in the computation of the business income of the assessee ? (Ritz Continental Hotels Ltd. v. CIT : [1978]114ITR554(Cal) ).' 3. The assessee-company is wholly owned by the Government of Uttar-Pradesh and has been carrying on the business of processing of seeds. For this purpose, it has set up a factory at village Nagla and obtained loans from the State Bank of India amounting to Rs. 1,32,77,660 whereon interest in question amounting to Rs. 97,289.52 was paid by the assessee. This interest was disallo...
Sant Gopal Alias Bhagat (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ312
J.P. Semwal, J. 1. The sole accused-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1 -2-1992 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah, in sessions Trial No. 270 of 1990, convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to death. The learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah has made reference under Section 366 Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, which has been numbered as Reference No.2 of 1992.2. The accused-appellant took his trial on the allegation that Smt. Uma Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused and his other family members in connection with the demand of dowry and that on 8-2-1990 at 7.30 p.m. the accused in his house situated in village Naudhana, police station Bakewar, District Etawah in furtherence of his common intention with his brother and wife sprinkled kerosene oil over Smt. Uma Devi and set her on fire causing her death on account of burn injuries in District Hospital, Etawah on 7-3...
Bijendra Kumar and Others Vs. Basant Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: AIR1994All81
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 3rd Dec., 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Meerut deciding issue No. 2 against the defendant applicants and holding that the trial of Suit No. 80 of 1990 is not liable to be stayed under S. 10, C.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case so far as relevant for the purposes of the present revision are that Suit No. 947 of 1985 was filed by Smt. Savitri Devi, widow of Ghanshyam Singh against Smt. Santosh Kumari, widow of one Swatantra Kumar and Ved Singh (father of Smt. Santosh Kumari) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally entering upon the residential premises of the plaintiff situated at 12, Tara-puri, Harihar Khera, Lisari Road, Meerut and not to take possession of the same directly or through the police without adopting adequate legal recourse. The plaintiff claimed to be the sole owner of the said property. In the written statement Smt. Santosh Kumari, defendant in the said suit, inter alia denied...
Gyan Swaroop Gupta (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3895
ORDERN.L. Ganguly, J.1. These four bail applications were presented before this Court during summer vacations on 17th of June, 1993 with the prayer for releasing the accused applicants on bail during pendency of the case in the Court below. All these applicants are involved in case Crime No. 288 of 1993, under Sections 7/12/13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail application of Gyan Swaroop Gupta, the leading case, had not actually been finally disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge when his bail application was moved before this Court. The prosecution had applied for grant of remand of the accused-applicant in custody before the Court below. The Court below declined to grant the remand as prayed by the prosecution on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of Cr. P. C. However, it was observed that in case the prosecution desire to arrest Gyan Swaroop Gupta-applicant after informing him the reasons for his arrest as r...
Ashok Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1993
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR89]; (1994)IILLJ740All
S.N. Sahay, J.1. The petitioners who are Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department have filed this writ petition to challenge selection proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated January 27/30, 1993 for the post of Executive Engineer. Rule 8 of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Public Works Department) (Higher) Rules, 1990 provides that recruitment to the cost of Executive Engineer shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit through a Selection Committee constituted under the said rule. The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates in accordance with the U.P. Promotion by Selection (for posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986 and place the same before the Selection Committee along with their character rolls and such other records pertaining to them as may be considered proper. The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›