Allahabad Court July 1995 Judgments
Vidya Sagar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (ii) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ40All
Shobha Dikshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the labour court award dated March 17, 1994 contained in Annexure-13. Sri Vidya Sagar who is the Genera! Secretary of the U.P. Agro Employees' Union appeared in person and argued the case himself. He challenges the impugned award on the ground that proper and fair opportunity was not given to the Union to prove its case because the relevant documents for which a request was made to be summoned was not acceded to by the learned Labour Court and in the absence of these documents specially the confidential letter dated May 12, 1978, it could not be proved that the concerned workman worked for more than 240 days continuously in the previous year.2. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner pursuant to which the Slate Government referred the same to the Labour Court for adjudication. The dispute raised was as to whether the employee Sri Gopal Krishna has been legally and validly removed from service by the employer with ef...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganpati Oil Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR692(All)
1. Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Revenue andSri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the assessee on the question of admission.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961.3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following question of law does arise :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to restrict the aggregate amount of penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(c) to the extent of twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded calculated on the basis of tax payable by a registered firm and not on the basis of tax payable as an unregistered firm as provided under Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'4. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned question to this court....
Tag this Judgment!Jagran Prakashan Ltd. and Others Vs. Press Council of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All84
ORDERB.M. Lal, J. 1. By this petition underArt. 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have challenged resolution dated 21/22-1-1991, passed by respondent No. 1, the Press Council of India, (contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No. 1 invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Press Council Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) censured Hindi daily 'DAINIK JAGRAN'.2. The short facts leading to this petition are as under:Petitioner No. 1 is a limited Company publishing Hindi newspaper in the name of Dainik Jagaran from Kanpur, Lucknow, Gorakhpur, Agra, Meerut, Allahabad Bareilly, Varanasi and New Delhi. Dainik Jagaran is published from different places but petitioner No. 2 who is 'Editor' is concerned in this case only with the editions published from Agra, Meerut, Varanasi, Allahabad, Bareilly and New Delhi. Petitioner No. 3 publishes newspaper from Varanasi and Allahabad.3. The case of petitioners is that besidestheir own news service and news re...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd., Etawah and Etc. Vs. Smt. Shakuntala ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ342; AIR1996All188
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J.1. Sri A.B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for New India Assurance Company in F.A.F.O. No. 278 of 1994 has raised following two submissions for consideration at the outset which also arise for consideration in other two F.A.F.O.'s mentioned above, as such, all the three F.A.F.O.'s are being decided together.2. The procedure contemplated for deciding First Appeal From Order before the High Court should be same as the procedure contemplated by S. 96 of C.P.C. in deciding the First Appeals and since there has been along consistent practice of this Court that the First Appeals have never been dismissed in limine, the same procedure should be applied for deciding the F.A.F.O. and the notice should be issued to the opposite parties as a matter of right and record of the case should be summoned in every case.3. Though under S. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Insurance Company can resist the claim of the insurer only ...
Tag this Judgment!Lippy Trading Corporation Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT194(All)
ORDERK.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Stay Order No. 39/95-D, dated 15-3-1995 served on 8-4-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and for issue of a writ of mandamus directed the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal of the petitioner without insisting on any pre-deposit for recovery of adjudged amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of Leather Footwear without the aid of power and were filing proper declaration to the Central Excise Department to that effect. However, a case was registered on the petitioner on 25-2-1987 alleging that the petitioner had failed to take the Central Excise Licence and the Superintendent Central Excise,...
Tag this Judgment!Super Electronics Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT268(All)
ORDER1. The only question for consideration in this case is whether an order dated 20-12-1993 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing refund to the petitioner has become inoperative by virtue of the fact that an appeal by the respondent against that order is pending before the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Tribunal.2. It is settled law that no order will become inoperative simply on account of pendency of appeal unless its operation is stayed by higher authority. It is not the case of the respondent that any stay order was obtained from the Tribunal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) and, therefore, that order being final will continue to be operative unless its operation is stayed by the Tribunal.3. Upon hearing the parties the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents is directed to make refund pursuant to the order of the Collector (Appeals) Ghaziabad (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) within one month from the date a...
Tag this Judgment!Tony Electronics Limited Vs. Acce, Div.-i
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(61)LC190(Allahabad)
1. The only question for consideration in this case is whether an order dated 20.12.1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing refund to the petitioner has become inoperative by virtue of the fact that an appeal by the respondent against that order is pending before the Central Excise Customs and Gold Control Tribunal.2. It is settled law that no order will become inoperative simply on account of pendency of appeal unless its operation is stayed by the higher authority. It is not the case of the respondent that any stay order was obtained from the Tribunal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) and, therefore, that order being final will continue to be operative unless its operation is stayed by the Tribunal.3. Upon hearing the parties the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent is directed to make refund pursuant to the order of the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) within one month from the date a ce...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shakuntla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC1
R.B. Mehrotra, J.1. Mr. A.B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for New India Assurance Company in F.A.F.O. No. 278 of 1994 has raised following two submissions for consideration at the ouset which also arise for consideration in other two F.A.O.'s mentioned above, as such, all the three F.A.F.O.'s are being decided together.2. The procedure contemplated for deciding First Appeal From Order before the High Court should be same as the procedure contemplated by Section 96 of C.P.C. in deciding the First Appeals and since there has been a long consistent practice of this Court that the First Appeals have never been dismissed in limine, the same procedure should be applied for deciding the F.A.F.O. and the notice should be issued to the Opposite Parties as a matter of right and record of the case should be summoned in every case.3. Though under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Insurance Company can resist the claim of the insurer on...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Chand Agrawal Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR287(All); [1995]83TAXMAN630(All)
1. Heard Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, appearing for the respondents.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceedings on the basis of demand notice dated August 7, 1981, and show-cause notice of the same date contained in annexures-13 and 14, respectively, to this petition.3. It is contended that in pursuance of the impugned show-cause notice and demand notice, an amount of Rs. 13,224, is being recovered from the petitioner.4. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that he is a tenant of a portion of house No. 58/52, Baihrana Road, Kanpur. This building is owned by Rameshwar Prasad Bagla and Satya Narain Bagla, who were income-tax assessees. An amount of Rs. 30,67,989.64 was found due against them towards income-tax dues, and, therefore, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the assessees, Rameshwar Prasad Bagla and Satya Narain Bagla.5. However, it also transpire...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. R. Mani Goyal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(All)274; [1996]217ITR641(All); [1996]85TAXMAN139(All)
K.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated July 7, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, whereby the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal against recovery proceedings has been rejected. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of income-tax for the assessment year 1992-93 from the petitioner and for a direction to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal forthwith.2. I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal for the opposite party and perused the material brought on record.3. The petitioner has filed a first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at Muzaffarnagar, in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, whereby the income-tax liability of Rs. 31,41,142 was determined but before...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »