Allahabad Court November 1996 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.
Shree Ashray Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(All)394; [1997]223ITR705(All); [1997]93TAXMAN36(All)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred to this court the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961'), for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the enhancement of penalties made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1973-74. For these years, the assessee returned incomes in the original returns as follows : Rs.1966-675,0001968-695,0001969-705,5001973-744,6203. Assessments for the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were completed on the basis of the incomes returned by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer noticed during the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 that a house was being constructed by the assessee in the name of his...
Durga Singh and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ57All; (1997)1UPLBEC71
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of Labour Court, Dehradun dated August 31, 1995, Annexure 1 to the petition.2. In this case on August 13, 1996, learned standing counsel was granted one month to file counter affidavit and thereafter on October 3, 1996 he was granted three weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit but as yet no counter affidavit has been filed.3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.4. The petitioners are working under the control of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Kalagarh district Pauri Garhwal. The petitioners services were terminated in 1976 and they raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow which decided the dispute by its award dated July 25, 1978, true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. By this award the termination of service was set aside and it was held that they are entitled to be continued in service, and for the period of abse...
U.P. Excise Subordinate Offices Ministerial Association and ors. Vs. U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ99All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The excise clerks in the subordinate offices claim that they are being paid less and are allowed lesser scale than that is allowed to the excise clerks in the head-quarter, though are performing same job. In writ petition No. 276 of 1991 between Bindeshwari Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P., a certified copy of which is an-nexure IV to the supplementary affidavit, it was held that the reference cum head clerk in the subordinate offices of the head- quarter haying been performing same duties and responsibilities cannot be discriminated simply because their employment in head- quarter with those of the subordinate offices in the matter of scale and grade. The said order had been implemented bythe respondents in respect of the petitioners involved in the said case whereas in the present case it is excise clerks which consist of junior clerks and senior clerks, are indeed claiming similar right. In the supplementary counter affidavit in para 4 it has been admitted that un...
Vikram Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC754
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges inter alia the order dated 23.4.1996 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, by which it dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance of the conditions of pre-deposit under Section 35F and the order dated 22.8.1996 by which the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application.2. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the levy of excise duty and penalty before the said Tribunal and moved an application under the proviso to Section 35F waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal by order dated 14.3.1996 granted partial relief to the petitioner directing it to deposit the demand of excise duty and dispensed with the deposit of the penalty. It ordered the case to come up on 22.4.1996 for ascertaining compliance, meaning thereby it allowed the petitioner more than a month's time to deposit the amount. In the meantime the petitioner filed ...
S.B. Misra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC49
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioners are Science Demonstrators in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad. They are claiming same pay scale as Assistant Lecturers.2. I have heard Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.3. It may be mentioned that before the Second Pay Commission the post of Science Demonstrator as well as the Assistant Lecturer carried the same pay scale, but subsequently, on 2-6-1992 the post of Engineering Instructor (redesignated as Assistant Lecturer) was taken out of the cadre of Science Demonstrator, vide Annexure-7 to the petition. On 3-6-1992 the State Government by a Government Order gave the pay scale of 1640-2900 to the Assistant Lecturers whereas the petitioners' pay scale is Rs. 1400-2600. The grievance of the petitioners is that they should get the same pay scale as the Assistant Lecturers.4. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it is stated that the nature and duties of Science Demonstrators...
Alok Nautiyal and 34 ors. Vs. Basic Shiksha Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC154
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 appoint the petitioners on the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the district Tehri Garhwal.2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. It is alleged in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary School but are being arbitrarily denied appointment. Petitioner No. 1 has done his M. Sc. and B. Ed. and the other petitioners are also Graduates/Post Graduates and have got B. Ed. qualification. The respondent No. 1, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal published an advertisement in a daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 5-1-1995 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools for district Tehri Garhwal. The necessary qualifications have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition which includes the requirem...
Smt. Durgawati Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ675; AIR1997All257
ORDER1. This is a writ petition by a widow who is awaiting the payment of certain insurance policies subscribed and taken from the Lite Insurance Corporation of lndia (LIC) by her husband. Her husband Ram Munakka Pathak died on 21-1-1992 at the age of 50 years. 2. These were not the only three policies which the petitioner's husband had taken out from the LIC. The total number of policies taken by the petitioner's husband were six. Three were discharged after payment. The other three arc pending. These are policy Nos. 2801376, 280410670 and 290317011. 3. The defence by the LIC to resist payment to the widow on these three policies, as submitted in the counter-affidavit of the Administrative Officer. LIC, Divisional Office. Allahabad is explained thus:-- 'The enquiries reveal that at least since 1987 he had been suffering from the following ailments:-- 1. Hypertension for last four years before death. 2. Demantia (a chronic persistent disorder of disease) for one year before death. 3. A...
Rohtas Singh Vs. Commissioner, Agra Division and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All278; (1997)1UPLBEC307
ORDERB.M. Lal, J. 1. For determining the questions involved al this stage, relevant facts of these cases are as under :In Rohtas Singh's case (supra), the Commissioner Agra Division Agra and certain other officials, are alleged to have violated an order of this Court dated 6-9-93 and in Gaon Panchayat's case (supra), the Distt. Panchayat Raj Adhikari Bulandshahar is alleged to have violated this Court's order dated 11-7-96 passed in both the aforesaid cases respectively, consequently thisCourt has issued notices to show cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against them, pursuant to which the contemners appeared before this Court through Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.2. An objection was raised that the State Law Officers i.e. Government Advocates, Deputy Government Advocates, Additional Government Advocates, Assistant Government Advocates, Standing Counsel, Chief Standing Counsel Additional Chief Standing Counsel and public prosecutors appointed by the...
Ramji Tiwari and ors. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC360
M. Katju, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for payment of salaries by the State Government as teachers in the primary section of D. A. V. Intermediate College, Azamgarh.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.C. Budhwar who has been appointed by me as amicus curiae in this case.3. In my opinion, the claim of the petitioners for salaries as teachers in the primary section is interlinked with the right of children to get free education upto the age of 14 years. It is obvious that unless such teachers are given proper salaries they will not take proper interest in their work and hence the children will not get proper education.4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Ors., 1933 (1) SCC 645, that every child has a fundamental right to get free education upto the age of 14 years, and I have held in Surendra Kumar Dixit v. D.I.O.S., Agra and Ors., 1995 ALR (2...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR421(All); [1997]94TAXMAN450(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, challenges an order dated February 25,1987, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, by which it recalled its order dated August 22, 1984, passed in Appeal No. 2127 of 1982.2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent.3. The respondent, Manna Lal and Sons (P.) Limited, was the appellant in the aforesaid appeal that was listed on August 21, 1984, before the Tribunal, for the first time, for hearing. The assessee-respondent, which is located at Kanpur, sent an application for adjournment stating that it has not been able to instruct its counsel fully and the appeal be adjourned to some other date. The application was received in the office of the Tribunal on August 18, 1984, and the senior member of the Bench directed the same to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »