Allahabad Court August 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.
Anil Kumar Vs. Sonpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC648
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. F.A.F.O. No. 313 of 1979 Anil Kumar v. Sonpal and Ors. has been filed by the victim injured in the motor accident which took place on 6.10.1972 by the truck No. UPO 877. The truck in question belonged to Sonpal, respondent in this appeal, who was also filed F.A.F.O. No. 292 of 1979 against the same judgment and order of the Tribunal F.A.F.O. No. 287 of 1979 has been filed by M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Successor-in-Interest to the British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Since these three appeals arise out of the same judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they are taken up together. Heard Mr. P.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.C. Pandey, brief holder of Mr. A. Kumar, learned Counsel for Sonpal respondent.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute so far as the accident is concerned which took place on 6.10.1972 and the vehicle which was responsible for the injuries caused to the appellant Anil Kumar belongs to Sonpa...
Mohd. Salim Vs. Sri. Neeraj JaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1085
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for violating the order passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal pending before him. The facts of the case are that a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the applicant on 15-5-1982 on the ground that the applicant has encroached upon the land bearing survey No. 605/1129 and has constructed 3 rooms and a courtyard thereon. The Estate Officer vide his order dated 29-6-1987 passed under Section 5 of the said Act, directed the applicant to vacate the said premises by 15th July, 1987. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the applicant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 9 of the said Act and on 21-7-1987 the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, passed the following order:-'Heard.Admit.The operation of the impugned or...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(All)247; [1996]217ITR191(All); [1995]83TAXMAN565(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated December 9, 1977, passed in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 976 and 1954/(Alld.) of 1977-78 and 1976-77, respectively, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1971-72 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest due on the interest bearing loans did not accrue or arise to the assessee during the accounting year because the suits were pending for the recovery of the loans ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in putting off the facts of accrual of the interest in spite of the fact that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and the loans were interest bearing ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 42,942 as interest accrued was n...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(All)584; [1996]217ITR251(All); [1996]84TAXMAN138(All)
1. The Income-tax Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 correct in law in holding that the gift of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) made by means of a bank draft purchased on March 8, 1975, was not covered by the provisions of Section 64 of the Act ?'2. In brief, the facts giving rise to this question are these. The assessee gifted a sum of Rs. 50,000--through bank draft dated March 8, 1975, to Km. Hem Lata. Subsequently, the assessee married Km. Hem Lata on March 13, 1975. The interest accrued on the amount gifted was included in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee objected that since the gift of a sum of Rs. 50,000 was prior to the date of marriage and as such, interest accrued thereon cannot be included in his income. However, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the objec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR231(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question arising from the Tribunal's order dated June 18, 1975, for the assessment year 1972-73 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision is vitiated in law ignoring the material on record and in holding that the federation was providing credit facilities to its members through its own resources also besides arranging loans to the farmers from the financing institutions ?'2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent.3. The assessee is a co-operative society. During the year under consideration, it derived income, inter alia, by charging service charges for the supply of pump sets by one Southern Engineering W...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ782All
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., petitioner (here-in-after referred to as BHEL), challenged the award dated September 23, 1985 given by the Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.2. The brief facts of the case show that Sri Ved Singh Panwar was employed at the petitioner's Establishment as a Tradesman (Grade IV) since October 15, 1974 in the Production Department. On February 24, 1978 when he was going out of the factory through the Main gate during the lunch, was checked by the Security Staff and found carrying five pieces of Babbits weighing about 2.5 kgs. belonging to the Company. The search was made by the Security Staff in presence of witnesses which was found in coat pockets and hidden in underwear (Langot). In the petition, it is said that he confessed the guilt at the time of search in presence of certain witnesses. The written and signed statement admitting the guilt has been annexed. The r...
Ram Dhan and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1803
ORDERT.P. Garg, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two Criminal Revisions bearing Nos. 43 of 1983 (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P.) and 44 of 1983 (Nathu v. State of U. P.).2. The facts common to both these revisions are as under:-The three applicants, viz., Nathu, Rohan and Ram Dhan, were tried for offences under Sections 323/324/34, I.P.C, vide judgment dated 9-12-1981 passed by the VI Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Moradabad. All the three applicants were held guilty under Sections 323/324/34, I.P.C, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months Under Section. 323/34, I. P.C and R. I. for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I., for two months Under Section. 324/34, I.P.C. 3. All the three applicants preferred appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. The learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad, vide his judgment dated 7-1-1983 maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to all of them and dismis...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. H. Rehman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR107(All)
V.N. Khare, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the provisions of Section 16A(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Wealth-tax Officer is not statutorily obliged to adopt the valuation estimated by the Valuation Officer under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act and complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer ?'2. To give the factual background of this case, the assessee-respondent filed a report of the valuer in support of the valuation of his property before the Wealth-tax Officer. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the said report of the valuer and instead referred the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A, Sub-section (1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Valuation Officer submitted the report regarding valuation of the property of the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the sa...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Rashma Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR169(All); [1995]83TAXMAN551(All)
V.N. Khare, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27, Sub-section (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred for the opinion of this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view of the Tribunal that the relevant date for purposes of imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is the date when the return is actually due is legally unjustified ?'2. To give the factual background of this case, the assessee is an individual. According to the Wealth-tax Officer, she should have filed her return of total wealth for the relevant year by June 30, 1964, but she did not file the return within time. Accordingly, a notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was issued to her on February 8, 1972, and in response thereto the assessee filed a return on November 29, 1972, showing a total wealth of Rs. 1,57,124. The Wealth-tax Officer initiat...
Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court I a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1091]; (1996)IIILLJ790All; (1995)3UPLBEC1929
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri P.M. Pandey learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 3.2. The petition is directed against the award dated September 23, 1994 given by the Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 74 of 1994 and the order dated July 6, 1995 whereby the Court has rejected the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the award dated September 23, 1994 which was admittedly given exparte.3. Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 provides that the Labour Court. Tribunal or an Arbitrator, as the case may be, may set aside the order passed against a party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficeint cause for his absence. Thus the proposition that the Labour Court has power to set aside the ex-parte award cannot be doubted in view of the provisions ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »