Allahabad Court December 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.
Parmatma Nand Yadav Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC308
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th September, 1994 passed in writ petition No. 21389 of 1990, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant for the promotion to the post of L.T. grade with effect from 1-1-1990.2. The factual gamut of the case reveals that the appellant was appointed in C.T. grade on ad hoc basis on 19-10-1982 under the pro visions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 read with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service and Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter called the Act No. 5 of 1982). The appellant joined the service on 22-10-1982 and he was regularised on the said post under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act No. 5 of 1982 with effect from 12-1-1986. On 1-1-1990 a short term vacancy came into existence as one Shri Satyadeo Singh, an L.T. grade teacher was promoted as lecturer. The appellant claimed that he should be pr...
Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT20(All)
1. The grievance of the petitioner - a public limited company - engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wrapping paper and paper of other varieties is that the respondents have illegally levied and collected excise duty on the wrapping paper twice over.2. The duty on paper is payable under the Tariff Item No. 17(1) of the Schedule attached to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly, the Act). The contention of the petitioner is that the wrapping paper manufactured by it, is captively used for wrapping the paper of other varieties, which cannot be marketed without being wrapped; that the petitioner is not trading in the wrapping paper that in view of the Third Proviso to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (briefly, the Rules), the goods may be removed without payment of duty leviable thereon if they are consumed or utilised in the place where such goods are produced or manufactured either as raw material or a component part of the manufacture of any other commod...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.G. Teja Shah Chiranjit Lal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR267(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi, referred the following question for the opinion of this court ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income of the two periods could not he clubbed ?'The reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78. A partnership firm was originally constituted by four partners ; of them, one of the partners, namely, Shankar Dass, died on September 16, 1976. Thereafter, a new firm way constituted by inducting Smt. Seelawati as a partner in place of the deceased partner along with the remaining existing partners. All these facts have been stated in the statement of the case.2. The question, therefore, arose whether on the death of Shankar Dass, the predecessor firm stood dissolved or that firm continued with a changed constitution.3. Sri Ashok Kumar, appearing for the Revenue, clearly states at the Bar that the...
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC540
M. Katju, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 15-11-1996 Annexure 1 to the petition and have prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps to enforce the payment of the State advised, cane price as declared by the impugned order.2. We have heard Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Sri Sudhir Chandra and Sri Tarun Agarwal, Advocates.3. We have also heard Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Shashi Nandan for respondent No. 3.4. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are Associations of Sugar Factories in U. P. while petitioners No. 4 to 34 are companies owing sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh.5. The short question involved in this case is whether the State Advised cane price fixed by the State Government is legally valid.6. The petitioners No. 4 to 34 ate engaged in the business of production and sale of sugar by the v...
Vijai Shankar Saini Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC262
D.K. Seth, J.1. Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the service of the petitioner with respondent No. 3 in the post of Salesman was dispensed with by an order dated 30-6-1987. He has challenged the said order on the ground that the termination was effected persuant to a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Varanasi being letter dated 25-6-1987 and the oral instruction dated 30-6-1987 given by the Additional District Officer, Co-operative Societies, Rosra, being the foundation of the order of termination, without any resolution of the Co-operative Societies, can not be sustained.2. Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules governing his condition of service. Admittedly, he is not a member of Centralised service. Admittedly the Co-operative Society is operating within the district by reason whereof rules governing the service of the...
Sureshwar Dutt Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC299
S.C. Verma, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad dated 23-3-1993 wherein the pension of the petitioner was stopped in expectation of sanction of the Government under the provisions of Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations.2. The petitioner retired from service on 31-7-1992. Admittedly after the petitioner retired from service charge-sheet was framed it was served on 23-10-1992. It is alleged that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet and the Enquiring Officer submitted his report dated 30-12-1992 in the Office of the District Magistrate on 2-1-1993. The inquiring Officer found first charge fully proved and the second charge was also found proved against the petitioner in the enquiry report. The pension papers were also sanctioned by the Board of Revenue and was given interim relief of Rs. 20,460/- and Rs. 27,363 35/- in view, of the report of the Enquiring Officer the action under Regulations 3...
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ326All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. These bunch petitions were disposed of following the decision in the writ petition No. 14033 of 1992 Dr. J.B. Banerjee and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Subsequently an application for review has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The said review application has been taken up for hearing alongwith these Bunch cases on merits inasmuch as it was contended that the facts of these bunch cases are not identical with that of Dr. J.B. Banerjee's case (supra).2. After having heard learned counsel for either side, in my view the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent that the facts are not identical and issues are distinguishable is correct. Therefore, the application for review is allowed. Since learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the matter may be disposed of on merits, the hearing of the matter was also taken up simultaneously.3. A very short question arises in the present case which Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel has raised is that t...
Pooran Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2253
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order D/- 20 April, 1983, passed by Shri M.K. Sangal, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in S.T. No. 21 of 1982, State v. Pooran Singh, under Section 307, I.P.C., whereby he convicted the accused-appellant pooran Singh under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and convicted accused-appellant Ghasi Ram of the offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and Sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.2. Sadhu Singa was the victim in this case. He was employed in the 3 R.P.D. in the days of occurrence. The prosecution case was that on 14 March, 1981 he was present in the meeting of the Darbar in which the Officer Commanding used to hear the grievances of the labourers; that in that meeting accused-appellant Pooran Si...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Har Nath Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR713(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that two separate assessments should be made ignoring the provisions of Section 187(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts as stated in the statement of the case and as gleaned from the order of the Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee-firm wasconstituted under a partnership deed dated April 1, 1968, with five major partners and two minors, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In December, 1973, one of the minors, namely, Rakesh Mishra,attained majority and he opted to become a full-fledged partner in the firm. That necessitated a fresh partnership deed which was executed on April 1, 1974, by the five existing partners and Rakesh Mishra, who attained majority in December, 1973. Sri Rajiv Mishra, another minor, who was...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR879(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that out of the interest of Rs. 1,09,492 interest pertaining to this year alone was liable to be included in the assessment ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the compensation of Rs. 83,700 was the capital receipt and could not be taxed as a revenue receipt ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned, that is fully covered by an inter-parties decision in Moti Lal Chaddami Laljain v. CIT : [1980]122ITR949(All) in which the question was answered by this court in favour of the Revenue. Following the said decision, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. Turning t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »