Allahabad Court October 1995 Judgments
Hada Leasing and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Pradeshiya Industrial and Inv ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All209
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. The petitioner Hada Leasing & Industries Limited have filed this writ petition initially with the prayer that a mandamus should issue commanding the respondents not to sell the petitioner's unit under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (for short, the Act). This prayer was amended so as to include the prayer for quashing the sale of the unit which was made on 20-2-1992 and confirmed on 26-2-1992 in favour of M/s. Paam Eatables Limited, Bhargava Lane, New Delhi which has also been now impleaded as opposite party No. 3.2. In this writ petition after arguments were over an order was being dictated when the case was taken up on the last occasion. Sri Murlidhar prayed for taking up the matter on the next day to which Sri R. P. Goya) said that the request be accepted. The case was consequently adjourned and two typed pages and three lines on the third page are available on record which has been scored out today. On 9-10-1995 an adjournment was sought whereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All275
ORDERO.P. Jain, J.1. Petitioner Ram Bha-rosey Lal who is a retired Officer of Indian Army took a loan of Rs. 75611 -40 P. from the respondent Corporation for setting up a Dairy industry. For some reasons the venture was not successful and the petitioner was unable to repay the instalments to U.P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation), After some correspondence between the petitioner and the Corporation a notice Annexure '7' under S. 29 of State Financial Corporation Act was served on the petitioner. When the loan was not repaid in spite of notice, the Corporation published an advertisement, in a daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 14-9-1997. By this advertisement intending purchasers were invited to give their offers for the purchase of the property mentioned in the advertisement. It may be mentioned that the property was mortgaged by the petitioner with the Corporation at the time when the loan was sanctioned. The property belonging to the petitioner was sold by th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.D. Punetha and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR114(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's finding that two assessments for the two different periods shouldbe made in this case ?'2. There was a firm in the name and style of K.D. Punetha and Sons. It had four partners. One of the partners, Sri Keshav Dutt Punetha, died on February 25, 1975. Thereafter, another partnership deed was executed but the same was not registered. However, this firm was constituted by three partners of the old firm and Smt. Mohini Devi Punetha, widow of the late K.D. Punetha. The firm first filed a combined return for both the periods on June 28, 1975. However, on September 11, 1975, two returns were filed, one for the period April 1, 1974, to February 25, 1975, and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Scooter India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1037All
K. L. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated September 23, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow for directing the petitioner-Company to reinstate the opposite party No. 2 in service and pay him half of the back wages subject to adjustment of the payment received for leave travelling and three increments were ordered to be withheld.2. The opposite party No. 2 was a workman of the petitioner. He was granted leave travel concession for himself and for his family members during the year 1982-83 and he represented that his family travelled on May 1, 1982 by Railway from Lucknow to Bombay V.T. but on inquiry, it was found that no ticket was issued from Lucknow Station to any person for journey from Lucknow to Bombay V. T. Therefore, the petitioner was chargesheeted and on the domestic inquiry held against him, he was found guilty and consequently, his services were dismissed on February 28, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 denied the charge a...
Tag this Judgment!Hcl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT481(All)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why duty should not be charged on the amount recovered by the petitioner from the customers after the warranty period. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector and also submitted explanation. Subsequently notice of demand was confirmed aggrieved the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner Central Excise, Ghaziabad now designated as Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad. Alongwith the appeal the petitioner filed applications for waiver as well as stay of the impugned dues. In paragraph 16 it is alleged that the application for waiver as well as stay application was heard on 11-9-1995 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the orders were reserved. It is further alleged that in between the time the respondents have issued notice of demand for deposit of the excise duty which is un...
Tag this Judgment!Trilok Chandra Garg Vs. Asstt. Director (investigation) Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR97(All)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the entire search and seizure made at his premises on October 14, 1993. The seizure has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has nothing to do with Sri Ajai Garg and as such there being no search warrant in the name of the petitioner, the seizure is illegal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is no partition between the living portion occupied by various persons in the house. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein he denied the said fact. Further, in Paragraph 11, it is stated that both Ajai Garg and the petitioner are close relatives and have common business and interest. They are both partners of the firm in the name of High Way Motor Transport Company and Ajai Garg became the director in High Way Motor Transport Company (P.) Ltd. and both are living in the same house and the porti...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu NaraIn Alias Lal Ji Agrawal Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT33(All)
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction from this Court comanding the Collector, Central Excise, to return seized gold weighing 1.311 Kg. and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. In this petition the seizure of gold by the respondents was challenged on the ground that no fresh notice was given to the petitioner within 6 months from the date of order dated 27-3-1987 passed, by the Collector (Appeals). It appears that gold ornament was seized by the respondents from the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly served with the show cause notice against proposed confiscation of seized gold and penalty. The Additional Collector vide order dated 11-12-1984 confiscated the seized gold and proposed redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal transferred the...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT482(All)
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against impugned order dated 22-5-1991 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra and Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, although the case was taken up in the revised list. However, we have perused the writ petition and counter affidavit. The petitioner is a U.P. Government undertaking and is engaged in the manufacture of Cement. The petitioner has plants at Churk and Dalla where clinker is manufactured which is the raw material used for manufacturing cement. From the factory at Churk and Dalla the petitioner transports this Clinker by Rail and Road to its Chunar factory which is 100 kilometre away for manufacturing Cement. In transit some of the Clinker is lost and the dispute in this case is regarding the quantum of loss of Clinker in transit. It may be mentioned that Clinker which is used for manufacture of cement is exempt from Central Excise duty by ...
Tag this Judgment!Almora Magnesite Limited Vs. Smt. Deoki Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ978; [1996]85CompCas621(All)
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. These first appeals from orders are directed against the interim award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 25,000 as interim compensation to the heirs and le'gal representatives of the victims in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order awarding the interim compensation is not warranted according to law. He submitted that the vehicle in which the victims were travelling was insured and the court below has wrongly awarded the amounts to be paid by the appellant-company to the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the sole liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the court below without considering this aspect in a proper perspective repelled the submission of the appellant.2. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Beasa De...
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.O., Labour Court I and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR1974]; (1997)ILLJ405All; (1996)1UPLBEC284
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Facing proceedings of domestic enquiry initiated by their employer with the submission of the charge-sheet dated July 19, 1993 accompanied by an order of their suspension with effect from that date, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking an order in regard to the questions as to whether the certified standing order issued in the name of M/s Modipon Ltd. Modi Nagar was applicable to the Service Conditions and Terms of Employment and regulated the service conditions of the workmen, appointed by M/s. Modipon Ltd. falling in the category of the applicants who were working in the Modipon Fiber Co., Modi Nagar - a unit of Modipon Ltd. and in case the answer to the above question was in the negative praying in the alternative an interpretation as to whether the certified standing order of M/s. Modipon Fiber Co. - the unit of M/s Modipon Ltd. was applicable to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »