Allahabad Court November 1995 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.
Ram Chetan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ138All; (1996)1UPLBEC416
Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the continuation of the order of suspension dated September 4, 1995.2. Sri S.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged before me that in view of recent judgment of Hon'ble M. Katju. J. delivered on December 19, 1994, in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. 1995 (70) FLR 731 (Alld.) the petitioner deserves to be given benefit, and there is no necessity of continuation of suspension order. Further since the petitioner was taken into police custody and was enlarged on bail on August 24, 1995, there is no earthly reason in putting the petitioner under suspension, even after his enlargement.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contingency of remaining in police custody for 48 hours of Government servant was in the mind of rule making authority, while framing rules, and it was in this view of the matter that a provision was m...
Pushpa Lata Saxena (Smt.) Vs. Chancellor, Agra University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ4All; (1996)1UPLBEC347
Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J. 1. This Writ Petition which is of 1988 origin, comes up for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Upadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the Agra University.2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for issue of an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's continuing in service as Lecturer in Hindi in Chitragupta Post Graduate College, Mainpuri. The petitioner has also prayed for issuing a mandamus to the respondents to the effect that no person be appointed on the said post by the Selection Committee during the pendency of the Writ Petition.3. When this Writ Petition was moved before this Court, Hon'ble Y. Nandan J. and Hon'ble B.D. Agarwal, J. on November 16, 1980 issued notice and restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's continuation in service as lecturer in Hindi in the said college until disposal of thi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sukh Dayal Sobh Raj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(All)561; [1996]218ITR309(All); [1996]85TAXMAN221(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two separate assessments for the two periods, should be framed, there being separate, distinct and different entities, i.e., firms being in existence during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 ?'2. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the assessment year involved is 1976-77. The assessee, a dealer on wholesale basis in cloth, filed two returns of its income one for the period April 1, 1975, to August 14, 1975, and the other for the period from August 18, 1975, to March 31, 1976. The case of the assessee was that one of its partners, Sri Sobh Raj, died on August 14, 1975, and, therefore, the firm stood dissolved and an absolutely new firm came into existence on August 18, 1975. The assesse...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Standard Chemical Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR138(All)
1. Pursuant to a direction of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was engaged in a priority industry and was, therefore, entitled to higher rate of development rebate at 35 per cent. ?'2. The facts, as succinctly stated, are that the assessee purchased a cotton waste plant during the accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1970-71. It claimed development rebate on it at the rate of 35 per cent. The same was allowed by the Income-tax Officer, but subsequently by an order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), dated February 26, 1975, he withdrew the development rebate originally granted at the rate of 35 per cent. and instead allowed development rebate at the rate of 20 per cent.3. On appeal, the Appellate As...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(All)321; [1996]218ITR483(All); [1996]85TAXMAN198(All)
1. Pursuant to a judgment passed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's one-fourth share in the composition fee of Rs. 53,179 was an admissible deduction under Section 24(1)(ii) from his property income ?'2. The relevant facts as gleaned from the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1972-73, inter alia, are that the assessee has a one-fourth share in a building, namely, 'Agarwal Building', situated at Mall Road, Kanpur. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 13,924 for the assessment year 1972-73 representing the assessee's share of composition money paid to the Cantonment Board. The plot on which the said building is situate was purchased in the year 1963 by the assessee and others from the original owner. The original ...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All199
ORDERO.P. JAIN, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Hindalco Industries Ltd. and petitioner No. 2, one of its shareholders, have filed this writ petition with a prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued and the impugned order, Annexure '15' dated 3-2-1995, may be quashed.2. The brief facts, leading to the petition, that Hindalco Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called as Hindalco) has its factory at Renukoot district Sonbhadra. The factory has a residential colony for its workers and employees which provides residential accommodation to them on a nominal licence fee. The house are equipped with amenities; like water and electricity etc. Hindalco also extends to its employee at their residential accommodations a Cable Net Work for viewing television programme and for that purpose it has installed a dish-antenna and other necessary equipments. The dish-antenna has been installed after getting licence, Annexure '1' which has been renewed, vide Annexures '2' & '3'. The Cable Net Work is also registered wi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dina Nath Jhunjhunwala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(All)384; [1996]220ITR364(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Pursuant to an order dated February 15, 1979, passed by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case referring the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in revision under Section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the tax liabilities were not outstanding for more than 12 months on valuation date and were thus allowable as deduction in the computation of net wealth of the assessee ?' 2. Both the questions revolve round the same factual position and that is briefly stated thus :The assessee is an individual assessed to wealth-tax. Orig...
Shree Janki Solvent Extractions Ltd., Vs. Deputy Director of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(All)60; [1996]221ITR30(All)
ORDER OF REQUISITION UNDER S. 132A--Condition precedent.Ratio :The order does not speak about satisfaction or formation of opinion in respect of the condition that the document will not or would not be produced or cause to be produced if the summons are issued or might be issued, the order of requisition cannot therefore be sustained only on that ground.Held :From the perusal of the file and the order it is apparent that nothing has been recorded in respect of any apprehension or belief that in case any summons is issued or might be issued, the documents, may not be produced. The order does not speak about satisfaction or formation of opinion in respect of the condition that the document will not or would not be produced or cause to be produced if the summons are issued or might be issued. Not to speak of any material or reasons for arriving at such belief. This shows that the said order was issued machanically and without any proper application of mind, inasmuch as there was no record...
Mukesh Ram Chandani and Others Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All219; (1995)3UPLBEC2006
ORDERU.P. Singh, J.1. At the very threshold, the common question raised in all these petitions is as to whether in terms of Article 243ZG of the Constitution there is complete and absolute bar in considering any matter relating to Municipal election on any ground whatsoever after the publication of the notification for holding Municipal election.The provisions contained in Article 243ZG may be noticed which reads: '243 ZG. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made Article 243ZG shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. Considering the importance of the matter, when the petitions were taken up for hearing, sev...
Ravindra and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT486(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 20-12-1994 Annexure 36 to the writ petition.2. I have heard Shri S.P. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that against the order of the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Farrukhabad dated 31-12-1991 the petitioner filed a Writ petition which was disposed of on 6-12-1994, vide Annexure 29 to the writ petition. This Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 35 and the Court allowed the petitioners one month time from the date of the order to file the said appeal. The petitioners filed an appeal on 20-12-1994 which was within the time granted by this Court. This appeal has been dismissed vide Annexure 33 to the writ petition on 22-12-1994 on the ground of limitation. It seems that the petitioners had not been able to submit certified copy of the Judgment dated 6-12-1994 and hence the appeal was dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »