Allahabad Court December 1994 Judgments

Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Ltd. Vs. Cegat

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT433(All)

ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders dated 19th August, 1993, and 27th January, 1994, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavite have been exchanged and the petition has been finally heard at the admission stage itself.3. M/s. GTC Industries Limited, petitioner No. 2, is a manufacturer of cigarettes. It has its own manufacturing facilities and also gets the cigarettes manufactured by other manufacturers, including M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Limited, petitioner No.l. The Excise authorities claimed to have discovered that they were avoiding excise duty and, therefore, the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, passed an order levying a sum of Rs. 1,01,20,221/- on the petitioners as excise duty and additional excise duty. This amount was levied on the two petitioners jointly. In...

M/S. Basti Sugar Mills. Co. Ltd., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Other ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1995All309

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Reservation order dated 9-11-1994 (An-nexure-10 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the assignment of Tinich Rail centre to respondent No. 5 M/s. Babhnan Sugar Mills Ltd. By the said impugned order dated 9-11-1994, the Cane Commissioner, U.P. has issued the Reservation order for the Crushing season 1994-95 reserving Tinich Rail centre to the petitioner but assigning it once again to Babhnan sugar Mills Ltd.2. The petitioner M/s. Basti Sugar Mills' Co. Ltd. Unit Walterganj is a company engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar through the vacuum Pan Process. The unit at Walterganj was established in the year 1932 and is one of the first sugar Mills establishedin the State of Uttar Pradesh. This unit at Walterganj has a crushing capacity of 1100 T.C.D. and has a requirement of 20 lac quintals of sugar cane for the crushing season 1994-95 and it has started its crushing w.e.f. 14-11-1994. The c...

Nazma Begum Vs. Irsad Ali

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: I(1995)DMC443

N.B. Asthana, J.1. The revisionist filed Misc. Case No. 896 of 1989, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in the Court of I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. The claim of the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 1000/- as maintenance allowance for the Iddat period, Rs. 15,000/- for the return of Dowry and presents given at the time of marriage and for the recovery of Rs. 6,000/-as Mehr and Rs. 1,232/- given as Salami at the time of marriage was decreed. In all the amount came to Rs. 23,232/-. It was not disputed that the revisionist was married to the opposite party and subsequently the opposite party divorced her.2. The opposite party filed Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1991 which was partly allowed on 14.8.1991 by the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. The claim of the revisionists was reduced to Rs. 3.000/-. Aggrieved by it the revisionist has come to this Court.3. It was not disputed that Mehr of Rs. 6000/- was agreed to be paid b...

Anand Prakash Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: II(1995)DMC478

Virendra Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned State Counsel.2. Anand Prakash Malviya has filed this application for the quashing of the summoning order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, summoning applicant under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The record of the case was summoned. The record shows that the entire language of the order comprises of a rubber stamp. The use of rubber stamps for passing judicial orders is not proper. I will not go to the extent of holding that the summoning order has been passed without application of mind. But at the same time, if orders are passed using a rubber stamp, it may create an impression that mind has not been applied.3. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow summoning the applicant is quashed, The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall look into the entire facts and circumsta...

Aquil Alvi Son of Izhar Ahmad Alvi and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1996CriLJ103

ORDERC.A. Rahim, J.1. This application has been filed challenging the order of the learned Special Judge, Meerut, passed on 27-9-1994 in connection with S.T. No. 566 of 1993. By that order the learned Special Judge initiated proceeding to determine the age of the applicant No. 2. An application on behalf of applicant No. 1 was also filed on 8-3-1993. The contention of both the applicants is that they are minors and their trial cannot be held along with other accused persons in that committal proceedings. By order dated 27-9-1994 the learned Special Judge has disposed of the application of applicant No. 2, stating that under the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act and in view of the decision reported in 1993 AAC 55 case of Mahboob Ahmad v. State of U.P. he has authority to initiate proceeding and he proceeded accordingly to determine the age of applicant No. 2. No order has been enclosed as regards fate of the application of applicant No. 1 filed on 8-3-1993. Since th...

Ram Singh S/O Karta Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1996CriLJ96

ORDERC.A. Rahim, J.1. A sale deed was executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and another in which applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were witnesses. The said sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar Nakur, district Saharanpur on 13-10-1993. A first information report was lodged and case Crime No. 225 of 1993 was registered on 25-10-1993 by sub registrar, respondent No. 2, on the allegation that the photograph of the respondent No. 3 on the deed was forged. There was an allegation that when the said fact was detected by him he inquired the matter from his office and on 18-10-1983 two unknown persons came at his residence and pressed for changing the said photograph in the original deed. The applicants having come to know about the case surrendered before the Court and bail was granted accordingly. After the said incident respondent No. 3, Salma Begum, aged about 75 years, filed civil suit before the Civil Judge, Saharanpur (No. 533 of 1993) wherein she prayed ...

income-tax Officer Vs. Goyal Trading Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. This Revenue's appeal is directed against the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 by which he deleted the additions of (i) Rs. 7,38,000 added in the assessment on the ground that to such extent the purchase account had been wrongly debited and also vacated the disallowance of Rs. 4,200 added by the Assessing Officer as proportionate interest in respect of money advanced to Messrs. Manoj Enterprises. In respect of the primary contention (supra), the Revenue's agitation is that the learned first appellate authority wrongly admitted fresh evidence.2. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, Shri Vinit Sahai, made primary submission that with regard to the grievance that fresh evidence had wrongly been admitted, the Revenue's case was that there was violation of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which provision governs production of additional evidence before the first appell...

State Bank of India and anr. Vs. Manphool and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ523All

D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.1. This appeal, filed by the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Railway Road, Farrukhabad, through its Branch Manager and the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-II, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur, is directed against the judgment/order dated April 8, 1994 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33050 of 1990 in which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition with certain directions. The operative portion of the judgment/order reads :--'The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, applying Aristotelian and Baconian reasonings, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated January 22, 1987, March 10. 1987 and November 16, 1990 (Annexures 2, 3 and 9 to the writ petition) are quashed by issuing a writ or Certiorari. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Railway Road, Farrukhabad and the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region II, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur are directed to reinstate him (the petitioner...

irshad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1996CriLJ749

ORDERC.A. Rahim, J.1. A first information report was lodged against seven accused persons on the allegation that they being armed with deadly weapons entered into the house and assaulted the inmates for which all the inmates numbering about 8-9 persons were injured. They assaulted with an intention of committing murder. Firing was done but unfortunately it did not hit anybody. On the basis of that first information report a case was registered. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the two persons, namely, Jamshed and Ikramullah and rest of the persons were discharged. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. But after examination of the complainant an application was filed under Section 319, Cr. P. C. for issuing summon to six accused persons (revisionist before me) and the same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge., The present revision has been filed against the said order passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnag...

international Electron Devices Ltd. Vs. Collector (A), Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT207(All)

ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Ghaziabad, against excise dues amounting to Rs. 16,25,414.97p. The petitioner moved an application under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act praying that the condition of pre-deposit of the said dues be waived. The learned Collector has rejected the application.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, I find that the petitioner has an arguable case and it being a small scale unit, deserves relief under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Therefore, as agreed, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the aforesaid amount within one month from today and on deposit of the same, the condition of pre-deposit of the balance dues shall stand waived. It is further or...