Allahabad Court January 1994 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.
Century Foams Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(All)342; [1994]210ITR625(All); [1995]82TAXMAN575(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', to refer the following five questions for the opinion of this court, which it is claimed, are questions of law and arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed in appeal: '1. Whether the order of the Tribunal was vitiated in law because it rejected the evidence without sufficient ground and failed to consider the material on the record 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in basing its conclusion of confirming the addition of Rs. 38,747 on the basis of stock statement dated March 31, 1981, which was not signed by the assessee and rejecting the bank certificate dated December 18, 1989, and further not considering the other essential matters on the record 3. Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal approving the addition for stock discrepancy in the case o...
Birendra Bikram Singh and Others Vs. Kamala Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All243
1. This second civil appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1982 passed by Sri Harish Chandra, District Judge, Bahraich, dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1982, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1982 passed by Sri Jagdish, Civil Judge, Bahraich in Regular Suit No. 99 of 1980. 2. Smt. Kamla Devi plaintiff-respondentfiled a suit bearing No. 99 of 1980. against her husband Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. 'Roop Rani with whom Sri Birendra Bikram Singh married later on and two others praying that the decree in the nature of declaration be passed against Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. Roop Rani appellants Nos. 1 and 2, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit to the effect that Smt. Roop Rani is not the legally wedded wife of Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and in alternative if their marriage stood proved then that marriage be declared null and void. It was also prayed that the appellant No: 2 Birendra Bikram Singh be directed to pay...
Abdul Malik Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All376
ORDER1. Involving a common question, these three petitions, are filed by contractors carrying on mining operation in forest area, seeking a common relief that Government Order dated 10-9-1993 (Annexure '5' to the writ petition of Abdul Malik) be quashed. The petitioners also seek quashing of order dated 28-9-1993 filed by the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow (Annexure '1' to the writ petition of Vijayant Jaiswal) and the minutes of the meeting taking decision in favour of various Corporations and rejecting the applications of the petitioners.2. Abdul Malik, Vijiyant Jaiswal and Gurdeep Singh (petitioners) made applications 3-8-1993 to carry on mining operation in different areas. Abdul Malik applied for Gola Plot No. 4 and Gola Plot No. 5 Vijiyant Jaiswal applied for lower Kosi area, and Gurdeep Singh applied for Gola Plot No. 1 inter alia. For Gola Plot No. 4 the U.P. Forest Corporation completed its application on 8-9-1993 and for Gola Plot No. 5, the U.P. ...
Sri Nand Kishore Gupta, Advocate Vs. the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All238
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J. 1. In this first Appeal From the Order under Order 43, Rule 1(s)ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) against the order dated 24-12-1993 rendered by Sri A.C. Verma, Civil Judge, Budaun, allowing the application of the receiver Nand Kishore gupta, Advocate, in part in respect of the payment of the fees, the point for our determination is as to whether the Appeal is maintainable.2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Civil Judge has erred in law in refusing the relief in respect of payment of the appellant's fee substantially, consequently, this order is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be set aside.3. After scrutinizing the merits of thesubmissions, we are entertaining grave doubts as to whether this F.A.F.O. is maintainable under. Order 43, Rule 1(s) of the Code. It has to be ascertained as to whether the impugned order was passed under Order Forty Rule 4 of the Code, as in order to be appealable under Rule 1(s) of Order 43,...
Atar Singh and Others Vs. District Judge, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All295
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1st February 1993 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi, rejecting the objection of the petitioner filed under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in execution of decree against him and the order dated 2-11-93 passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the said order.2. The facts briefly stated are that respondents 3 and 4 filed Suit No. 508 of 1973against Bhawani Singh and Hardaspredecessors-in-interest of the petitioner forejectment from House No. 1725 situated inMohalla Nai Basti, Jhansi, arrears of rent anddamages. The summons of the suit wereserved on the defendants. The defendants didnot appear on the date fixed for hearing of thecase and the suit was decreed ex parte on9-7-1976.3. Bhawani Singh and Hardas who were defendants in the suit, after coming to know of the ex parte decree passed in the said suit, filed Suit No. 678 of 1976 for declaration that the decree passed by Judge, Small CausesCour...
Matador Malik Association Vs. the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Passe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC165
V.N. Khare, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to realize passenger tax from the Motor Cab Standard-20 vehicles of the members of the petitioner Union.2. We have heard Shri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioner and we find no merit in this petition.3. The petitioner is a registered Union under the control and supervision of which the members of the Union operate their vehicles and they have been granted Motor Cab permits by the State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that all the vehicles of the members of the petitioner union have a sitting capacity of 7 persons including the driver. A list of the members of the petitioner's Union is Annexure 2 to the petition. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicles of the members of the petitioner's Union are not stage carriage and hence they are not liable to pay passenger tax under the...
Sri Dasnam Naga Sanyasi and Another Vs. Allahabad Development Authorit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All418
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants against order refusing temporary injunction. In respect of a vast area of land, plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that after acquisition of a portion of the area, balance is in his possession, where the defendants are making an attempt to make constructions. In the suit plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction.2. A suit for relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction requires disclosure of facts to satisfy the requirements of S. 38 of the Specific Relief Act and absence of prohibition contained in S. 41 thereof. In such a suit court has a discretion which is to be exercised judicially for grant of perpetual injunction as the language of S. 38 provides.3. In the present case, as is revealed, plaintiff claims the land to be his whereasdefendant is attempting to raise construction on the land claiming the same to have been acquired. In such a dispute plaintiff ought to have sought for declaration of his title and conse...
Het Ram Kanodia Vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All77
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2) allowing the amendment application filed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 6th August, 1993 passed by respondent No. I affirming the said order in revision.2. Respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 751 of 1980 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar against respondents No. 4 to 10 and the petitioner on the allegation that the disputed accommodation was under the tenancy of the Purhwal Mills Co. Ltd. which was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 4). The defendants No. 1 to 4 in the suit illegality and without the consent and permisison of the plaintiff sublet the accommodation to defendant Nos. 5 to 8. The petitioner was implead-ed as defendant No. 7 in the Suit.3. During the pendency of the Suit the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint. It was stated that th...
indu Bhushan Sah (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(All)1; [1994]208ITR598(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question, they are being disposed of finally by means of a common judgment after hearing learned counsel for the parties. In these two cases in spite of time being granted in the past to learned counsel for the Revenue no counter-affidavit has been filed. In fact, on April 16, 1991, the last order was passed for granting further time to file counter-affidavit and no more, but even thereafter more than two years have already elapsed, no counter-affidavit has been filed, nor any application has been moved except for an oral request which was made today to grant further time. In fact more than 13 years have gone since the filing of the writ petition and no counter-affidavit has been filed. There is no justification to grant any further time and we are deciding these petitions finally only on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition itself after hearing learned counsel for the parties.2. Through the first w...
Ugra Sen Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR206]; (1996)ILLJ236All; (1994)3UPLBEC1896
ORDERVirendra Saran, J.1. Ugra Sen Singh and Hari Sen Singh sons of Smt. Dropadi Devi (since dead) have filed this writ petition, stating that their mother, late Smt. Dropadi Devi w/o Sri Raghunath Singh was working under the Senior Medical Superintendent, Manila Hospital, Balrampur Hospital, Luchnow as 'Aaya' (attendant). She died on April 12, 1992 leaving behind the petitioners and two daughters, namely. Km. Chandra Kanta Singh and Km. Kanchan Singh, the grievance of the petitioners is that even though their mother, who was the subscriber depositor of the provident fund had duly nominated the petitioners the amount standing to the credit of Smt. Dropadi Devi is not being paid to them.2. This Court by its order dated November 17, 1992 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. No counter-affidavit has been filed as yet and hence the allegations made in the writ petition remain un-rebutted and are to be accepted.3. It may further be mentioned that by its ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »