Allahabad Court December 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.
Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC499
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision by the husband has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7.7.1993 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 287 of 1991 (Smt. Shobha Rani v. Shankar Singh and Anr.) setting aside the order dated 26.10 91 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Bijnor in Misc. Case No. 37 of 1990 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to opposite party No. 2, Smt. Shobha Rani, from the date of application.2, Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed upon the allegation that Smt. Shobha Rani was married to Shankar Singh on 4th May, 1985 at Nagina. Immediately after the marriage, she came to know that her husband had earlier married to one Smt. Adesh Kumari. She enquired about it from him whereupon he replied that Smt. Adesh Kumari was married to one Rajesh Kumar of Nangal and that she was not his wife. However, on 25.8.1985, her husband came alongwith...
Raj Veer Singh Vs. Smt. Shashi Bala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC207
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision by the husband has been directed against the order dated 14.9.1993 passed by VIII Additional C.J.M., Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 524 of 1993 allowing the application for execution of maintenance allowance for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month.2. It appears that Smt. Shashi Bala was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month vide order dated 30.11.1987. She filed an application for the recovery of the balance of the maintenance allowance, whereupon the present revisionist filed an application stating that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, that in view of this compromise no dispute remains between the parties, that Smt. Shashi Bala was not entitled to claim maintenance allowance after the compromise and that her application for recovery of maintenance allowance should have been dismissed by the Trial Court. From a perusal of the material made available it would appear that Raj Veer Singh f...
Akhtar Ali Son of Asghar Ali Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ459
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the trial proceedings arose out of crime No. 1742 of 1973, of P.S. Kotwali, Bareilly. In this case on 8-4-19941 had granted the learned Government Advocate three weeks to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet although more than 8 months have expired. In the circumstances I presume the allegations in the petition to be correct and I am disposing of this application finally.2. The applicant was a Revenue Inspector in Municipal Board, Bareilly since 1956 and lie has put in 37 years of service. On 30-9-1973 a first information report under Section 408/468/420, I.P.C, was lodged against him by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board. Bareilly vide annexure-l to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The applicant is on bail in the said case.3. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of this application it is alleged that the case was first...
Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence Vs. Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1994
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(All)658
ORDERV. K. SINHA, J. :The appeal for asst. yr. 1991-92 has been filed by the Department, whereas the appeal for asst. yr. 1993-94 has been filed by the assessee. The issue is the same and, therefore, the two appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. For asst. yr. 1991-92, the assessee filed a return as an AOP/trust showing nil income. It was claimed that the income was exempt under s. 10(22) of the Act as an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes. An auditors report under s. 12A(b) of the Act was enclosed along with the income and expenditure account and balance sheet.3. In the course of the hearing, a copy of memorandum of association was filed according to which the objects of the society were as under :'(i) To propagate and apply the science of yoga through the science of creative intelligence and its practical aspect the transcendental meditation (also abbreviated as TM) and TM-sidhi programme as propounded by his Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.(i...
Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. Kailashpur, Dehradun Vs. Central Bank ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All327; [1995(70)FLR704]
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order dated 5-12-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Saharanpur.2. The brief facts leading to the order are that respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India filed a suit against revisionist Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. for the recovery of more than twenty two crores of rupees. The suit was filed by the Bank on 8-10-1994. The case of the revisionist is that prior to the filing of the suit by the Bank the revisionist company had made a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act of 1985 (hereinafter called the Act of 1985). Reference made by the company was registered as case No. 116/94 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the Board) on 26-8-1994. On 18-10-1994 the Board permitted the Company to file by 31st December, 1994 the audited balance-sheet of the company for the year 1993-94 duly approved in the Annual General Meeting. The Company filed an application before Civil Judge...
Mohd. Yaseen Alias Chiddoo Vs. Zila Parishad Gonda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All352
ORDERI. S. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, who is Qureshi by caste and who carries on the business of slaughtering the animal etc., is aggrieved by the failure of the opposite parties to renew his licence for slaughter of animals. The licence appears to have been not renewed in view of the provisions contained in bye-laws 1(b) and bye-law No. 6 of the bye-lawsframed under S. 239 of the Zila Panshad and Kshetra Samiti Adhiniyam, 1961 (Annexure-1 to the petition), hereinafter referred to as bye-laws. The petitioner claims a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid bye-laws. He also claims for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to renew the petitioner's licence.2. The petitioner was granted licence for slaughtering animal. The licence was renewed from time to time. The last renewal was for the period ending 31-7-1987. He applied for renewal of the licence thereafter but the same has not been done. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties h...
Sundar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3481
S.K. Jain, J.1. This criminal appeal by Sundar, son of Bhikhari Harizan, resident of Parikshat Garh, P.O. Parikshatgarh, District Meerut, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 24th December 1979 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, vide which the co-accused of the appellant, namely, Rajendra and Surendra were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 and 394, I.P.C. whereas the appellant was convicted under these sections with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 394, I.P.C. and both the terms of sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16-4-78 when Veera, the complainant, along with his wife Smt. Rajo, his elder brother's wife Natho and nephew Karan Pal returned from the fields after harvesting the crop at about 2.30p.m. they saw Sundar, Rajendra and Surendra...
Miri Lal Mulk Raj Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD365(All.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which challenges the levy of penalty on it under Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a sum of Rs. 5,000 by the Assessing Officer, reduced to Rs. 3,000 during first appeal.2. The learned authorised representative for the assessee contended before me that, firstly, the Assessing Officer failed to express his intention of initiating penalty in question in the assessment order and, secondly, the turnover of the assessee also did not exceed Rs. 2,50,000 as contemplated by Clause (fi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44AA of the Act and as such penalty was not tenable.3. The learned Departmental Representative, opposing, submitted that unlike certain other provisions such as Section 271 of the Act, penalty was not necessarily required to be initiated by the Assessing Officer "in the course of any proceedings under this Act". This meant, it was contended, that penalty under Section 271Aas also under Section 27IB could be initiated even off the assess...
Ram Nath Sahu Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Agricu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1996All19
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from levy on rice produced by him is the only question involved in this writ petition.2. In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Government ol India Ministry of Agricultural Order dated 9-6-1978 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, the Government of U.P, promulgated an order known as The U.P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). Para 3 of the Order provides for compulsory levy on rice produced by the licensed miller at notified price. Para 5 contains a prohibition against the sale and/or disposal of the rice except in accordance with the release certificate issued by the prescribed authority in token of having sold the prescribed percentage of levy rice. Except for few districts of east U.P., the prescribed percentage of levy rice of 60% of the rice milled by the licensed miller. For c...
Dr. AijajuddIn Quraishi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC332
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 4.8.93 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 7505 for 1992 dismissing the revisionist application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the complaint. The complaint was filed under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 406 IPC with the allegations that the marriage of the complainant was settled with Dr. Aijas-uddin. Accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No. 1 Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. It was further said that during negotiations of marriage all the accused made several demands of dowry as consideration for marriage. Under compulsion the parents of the complainant fulfil their all demands. A sum of Rs. 90,886/-was spent in the marriage. Several parents valuable articles and ornaments were given in consideration of the marriage. The marriage took place on 28-4-92. The complainant sent to reside with the accuse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »