Allahabad Court September 1995 Judgments
Smt. Chandani and ors. Vs. Qafil and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC567
C.A. Rahim, J.1. The instant Revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.4.1995 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 702/93, allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the revisionist No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to the minor daughter Heena.2. The grievance of the revisionists is that the learned Judge did not consider income of the Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. husband of the revisionist which according to her is Rs. 2500/- as he used to run more than one tailoring shops around the town. It appears from the judgment that the learned Judge has determined the monthly income of the husband as Rs. 900/- per month and accordingly passed the order of maintenance at the above rate.3. Opposite Party No. 1 has appeared by filing a Vakalatnatna on 20.9.1995 but no counter affidavit has been filed until now. In the presence of learned Counsel for both the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage. Learned Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhrigunath, Son of Sumer Vs. Parmeshwar, Son of Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1552
ORDERS.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of Bhrigu Nath a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saidpur, Ghazipur on 14-9-92. An application for attachment of property was moved. The opposite party No. 1 Parmeshwar challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on the ground of he was in joint possession of Chak Nos. 105 and 301. This contention having been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, opposite party No. 1 Parmeshwar filed a Criminal Revision No. 7/93, which was dismissed on 7-9-94, which order was challenged in writ petition. On 29-10-94 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the attachment of property, This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1994, before the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. The learned Sessions Judge found that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having not recorded finding that the case was one of emergency, had not applied his mind and decided the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Singh Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT344(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This sales tax revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar dated May 10, 1989, passed in Second Appeal No. 601 of 1987. The revision arises from the penalty proceedings taken against the assessee under Section 15A(1)(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it was then known, and now known as the U.P. Trade Tax Act (for short, 'the Act').2. The facts are not in dispute. M/s. Singh Traders at whose instance this revision has been filed, is a proprietary concern of one Jaswant Singh Chawala who was also the Manager of National Jute Corporation, a Government undertaking. The above two business establishments were independent of each other and separately registered under the Act. They were also issued Form 31 separately. It is the case of the assessee that Form 31 of both the firms were handed over to a common transporter at Delhi for their use for the imports of goods from outside the State by the respective firms. It is said, M/s. Natio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tahir Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR869(All); [1996]84TAXMAN48(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question of law referred to us is as under : .'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 3,75,000 by the assessee was not a revenue receipt and in deleting the addition thereof in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee was a partner in the partnership known as Nayab Biri Factory, Moradabad, created by a deed of partnership which was executed on April 1, 1964. As one of the partners died and another left the partnership, a new deed of partnership was executed on March 17, 1967. The assessee continued to be a partner in the new partnership with his share and thereafter a deed of dissolution of this partnership was executed on March 17, 1969, and the assessee retired from the said partnership with effect from March 17, 1969. The remaining partners continued to be partners of...
Tag this Judgment!ElgIn Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Add. Regional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ439All
S.R. Singh, J.1. Recovery certificate dated April 30, 1994 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner. U.P. Kanpur Region, Kanpur in the purported exercise of power under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payments of Wages) Act, 1978 (in Short 'the Act') is sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition filed at the instance of the concerned Industrial Establishment 2. The impugned recovery certificate has been issued on an application under Section 3 of the Act read with rule 22 of the U.P. Factory Welfare Officers Rules, 1955 ( in short 'the Rules') moved on behalf of the workmen of the concerned Industrial Establishment through Ram Das Shukla, President of Elgin Mill No. 2, Rashtriya Shramik Sangh, 2, Navin Market, Kanpur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 7,24,619.56 as over time due to the workmen and Rs. 2,44,236.11 due to the welfare officers; arrayed herein as respondents No. 3 and 4. It was alleged in the application that all the workmen of Eiign Mill No. 2 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(86)ELT209(All)
ORDERB.N. Lal, J.1. Since the question involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common hence they all are being disposed of by this are common judgment. However, Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 562 of 1980, Kothari Chemicals and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. would be the leading petition, wherein main relief sought is to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned proceedings commencing from search and seizure to the supurdari of the goods made on 6-10-1980 (contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and other reliefs are consequential to this relief. The reliefs claimed in other connected petitions are also similar to those of the leading petition, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same.2. At the very outset Mr. U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India, raised preliminary objection that the writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable as they suffer from the doctrine of EXHAUSTION inasmuch as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(All)385; [1996]217ITR840(All); [1996]84TAXMAN396(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question of law referred to us is as follows :'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 her property income ?'The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual enjoying income from money-lending business. The original assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was made on total income of Rs. 19,020 on February 21, 1973. Subsequently, the Department was of the opinion that the composition fee paid by the assessee to Cantonment Board in respect of house property had been wrongly allowed and hence, action was taken under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing notice on September 17, 1974. In reply to the said notice, the assessee disclosed the same income in the orig...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhan Singh and ors. Vs. Somvati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC216
Kundan Singh, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 566 of 1982, under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agra, on the ground that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complaint was filed by Opp. Party No. 1 Smt. Somvati against the applicants, and others under Sections 147 and 323 1.P.C. with the allegations that Opp. Parties used to ask the applicant to bring money from her parents. She was often beaten by the applicants and they treated her with cruelty. On the day of incident, i.e. 17.12.1981, all the accused assaulted her with kicks and fists. On hearing her cries Kali Charan, Chhavi Ram, Kailashi, Jai Singh, Natthi and Suresh attracted to the scene of occurrence and they rescued her. Her report was not taken down by the Police of P.S. Nibora saying that it was a family dispute and did not require interference by the Police. Thereafter she sent...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gopal Chander Khalifa and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT483(All)
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Since counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. We proceed to dispose of this petition finally. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to release the seized goods namely Katha forthwith.2. The petitioner is a trader carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Krishna Gopal Chander Khalifa & Sons. It is alleged that on 19-3-1990 the respondent searched the premises of petitioner and seized 410 Kgs. of Indian Katha valued at Rs. 61,500/- under the belief that the same was of Nepali origin. It is alleged that after the seizure no show cause notice for confiscation of goods was issued by the respondents within six months from ' the date of such seizure. The case of petitioner is that since neither any show cause notice was issued nor time was extended for issue of show cause notice, the seizure of goods has become illegal and as such it is incumbent upon the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!R. Antony S/O. I. Antony Vs. Renusagar Power Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ329All
V.N. Mehrotra, J.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated August 23, 1994 by Shri O.P. Garg, District Judge, Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the present applicant against the judgment dated June 4, 1994 passed by Shri R.A. Kaushik, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case No. 751 of 1991.2. The brief facts of the case are that Renus-gar Power Company Limited filed a complaint against the accused R.Antony under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that on the basis of the appointment letter dated March 12, 1970 the accused started working as an employee of the Company since March 19, 1970. It was further alleged that quarter No. I-13/6 which was owned by the company was allotted to the accused by order dated June 15, 1983 and declaration dated August 20, 1983. The qureter was allotted to the accused in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. The services of the accused were terminated by an order dated December...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »