Allahabad Court December 1995 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meghdoot Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR190(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. By this reference relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled to extra-shift allowance in addition to the extra depreciation allowance specifically provided in the Income-tax Rules for approved hotels only ?'2. The assessee-company which runs an approved hotel claims extra-shift depreciation allowance, vide Appendix I, Part I, item III, sub-item (iv), in addition to extra depreciation allowance allowable for approved hotels, vide Appendix I, Part I, item III, sub-item (iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules').3. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed extra-shift depreciation allowance under sub-item (iv) in addition to extra depreciation allowable for ap...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1054All
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated June 18, 1991.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that petitioner was engaged as apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in Indian Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Phulpur, District Allahabad under the provisions of Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The contract of Apprenticeship was executed and signed by the petitioner and the employer as provided under Section 4 of the Act for two years training . It is alleged by the petitioner that the first contract was signed by one Sri N.P. Sinha on behalf of the respondents. Subsequently after the transfer of Sri N.P. Sinha that contract was canceled and the second contract was written and signed by Sri R.R. Rawat, who had succeeded in place of Sri N.P. Sinha as Manager Personnel and Administration (I) in the concern of the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sayeed Vs. Rehana Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC626
R.B. Mehrotra, J.1. Both the aforesaid First Appeals have been been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act and the common question of law involved in both the aforesaid First Appeals, is as to whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to pass orders under, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?2. Before appreciating the question of jurisdiction of the Family Court, it is necessary to notice the facts of the cases of both aforesaid Appeals. In First Appeal No. 642 of 1991, Smt. Rehana Begum, respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband, Mohd. Sayeed with the allegation that they were married according to Muslim rites and customs on 11.4.1986and from their wedlock a daughter named Shabana, who was aged about one year at the time of the filing of the petition, was born. Mohd. Sayeed, the appellant herein, informed by a letter to his wife, Smt. Rehana that he has divorced his wife....
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Singh Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC467
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner, holding permit to operate stage carriage on Meerut-Baghpat-Chaprauli route, had taken alongwith other operators of the Union, a plot measuring 9,750 sq. ft. on lease in the year 1940 and converted the same into a bus stand whereon Pucca construction there for has been made With necessary facilities after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Board, Meerut. The bus stand is located at a central place convenient for the passengers. The bus stand has a frontage of 108 feet and is situated about 50 feet away from the main road. However, the petitioner parks only two vehicles at the bus stand at a time. Because it is centrally located, even the late arrival of the bus at 9.00 p.m. facilitates the passengers. The City Magistrate in the year 1971 under the orders of the District Magistrate directed the shifting of the bus stand to some other place. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 694 of 1971 which was allowed on 19th August, 1974. Thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!TIn Manufacturing Co. of India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(All)490
ORDERBY THE COURT :Heard counsel for the parties.The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of tin containers and in that connection the petitioner has been importing tin-sheets vide import licence.A raid was conducted on the business premises of the petitioner by the Excise Department and then Forms A were recovered showing that the petitioner had applied for import of much larger quantity of raw material than that which was recorded in the excise registers. On this basis, the Excise Department gave an information to the IT Department that the petitioner had suppressed the consumption and production.2. Thereafter the Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circle, Ghaziabad, issued a show-cause notice dt. 22nd Sept., 1993 (Annex.4' to the writ petition). Pursuant to the said show-cause notice the petitioner filed a reply dt. 3rd Nov., 1993 (Annex.'5' to the writ petition) stating that the detailed explanation about discrepancies had been made before the CEGAT. No more details were given...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Sandhu and ors. Vs. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas146(All)
A.K. Banerji, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the shareholders of Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. (respondent No. 1), holding amongst themselves 35.7 per cent. shares, have filed this petition for the winding up of respondent No. 1 under Section 433(1)(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind up the said company. They have further prayed that the official liquidator be appointed as the provisional liquidator to take charge of the assets of the company. 2. The relevant facts, as set out in the petition, are that the respondent-company was originally a partnership concern of Majithia family of which Sir Sundar Singh Majithia was the head. The partnership was made on August 21, 1944, between Lady Parson Kaur, widow of the late Sir Sundar Singh Majithia and her sons, namely, Surendra Singh Majithia, Sardar Surjeet Singh Majithia and the sons of a deceased son, Kirpal Singh, namely, Gur Nihal Singh Majithia and Dilip Singh Majithia. In the year 1956, the par...
Tag this Judgment!Shaukat Vs. Smt. Mobina
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC529
C.A. Rahim, J.1. This Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.3.1995 passed by the Family Judge, Meerut, in Maintenance Application No. 344/1993 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. By that order the learned Judge allowed maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 200/- per month to daughter of the petitioner. Against that order the opposite party Shaukat, against whom the order was passed has preferred this Revision. The learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Judge erred in law in ignoring the contradiction appearing in the statement of wife of the revisionist and without applying the mind allowed the maintenance application. It has also been submitted that the learned Judge did not consider the attending facts and circumstances, including income of the revisionist and that the amount of maintenance is excessive. 2. The opposite party i.e. wife of the revisionist filed an application for maintenance on the ground that the revision...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Faizabad Roofing Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas22(All)
A. K. Banerji, J.1. The abovenoted application has been filed by the official liquidator, under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', in short), for dissolution of the company, Faizabad Roofing Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company (in liquidation)').2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the company (in liquidation) was promoted as a joint sector enterprise by the U. P. Small Industries Corporation (U;P.S.I.C.) and a private entrepreneur in the year 1975. The company failed to run and a petition was filed by U.P.S.I.C. Ltd. for the winding up of the company. By order dated September 8, 1987, the petition was allowed and the company was ordered to be wound up. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed the liquidator. Notices were issued by the liquidator to all the directors of the company (in liquidation) for filing the statement of affairs. However, only one of the nominee directors of the U.P.S.I.C., namely, R. K. Kapoor, filed a st...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: U.P. Presstressed Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas692(All)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. The above-noted application has been filed by the official liquidator, under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', in short), for dissolution of the company U. P. Presstressed Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company in liquidation').2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the company (in liquidation) was promoted as a joint sector company by the U. P. Small Industries Corporation (U.P.S.I.C.) which had 51 per cent. shares and the opposite party No. 3, R. K. Kapoor, a private entrepreneur, having 49 per cent. shares. The company failed to run and a winding up petition No. 15 of 1987 was filed in this court by the promoter U.P.S.I.C. for winding up of the company (in liquidation). This petition was allowed on April 5, 1989, and the official liquidator, attached to this court, was appointed the liquidator. Notices were issued by the liquidator to the ex-directors of the company for handing over charge of the assets and the records of the com...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: U.P. Roofing Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas831(All)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. The abovenoted application has been filed by the official liquidator under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', in short), for dissolution of the company, U. P. Roofing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company in liquidation').2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the company (in liquidation) was promoted as a joint sector enterprise by the U. P. Small Industries Corporation (UPSIC) and private entrepreneurs in the year 1975. The board of directors of the said company consisted of two nominee directors of the UPSIC, one director of the U.P. Finance Corporation (UPFC) and two directors of the private entrepreneurs. The company failed to run and a winding-tip Petition No. 13 of 1986 was filed in this court by the promoter, UPSIC, for winding up of the company (in liquidation). This petition was allowed on December 7, 1987, by this court and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed the liquidator. Notices were issued...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »