Allahabad Court March 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.
State of U.P. Vs. Prem Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1716
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-5-90 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah, acquitting the opposite parties-accused Prem Pal & 4 others in S.T. No. 767 of 1979 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/ 149 and 320, I.P.C.2. Shri K.C. Saxena, Addl. Government Advocate argued the appeal specifically raising the submission that the acquittal of the accused persons is not justified at all. From the evidence on record, the trial Court committed a manifest error in not placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution which proved the prosecution case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The occular testimony of the witnesses is in no way contradict the medical evidence. The submissions of the learned A.G.A. necessitated him to place the entire evidence before the Court.3. According to the prosecution, informant-complainant Daulat Pal Singh lodged a report at P. S. Jalesar at 11.20 a.m on 4th July, 1...
Waf Alalaulad and Another Vs. M/S. Sundardas Daulatram and Sons and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All355
ORDERR. A. Sharma, J.1. On May 26. 1950, Waqf Alalaulad through its Mutwalli therein-after referred to as the owner) executed a lease deed of its property therein after referred to as the property) in favour of Sri Om Prakash Gupta for the purposes of running a cinema house. The said lease was for a period of 45 years with effect from 1-1-1950 with a stipulation for its renewal for a further period of 15 years. Period of the lease expired on 31-12-1994. The owner took posses-sion of the property after mid-night of 31st December, 1994. Being aggrieved, M/s. Sundardas Daulatram and sons and M/s. Imperial Theatres thereinafter referred to as the tenants) filed a writ petition on March 6, 1995 before this Court for the following reliefs:'(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to force the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to restore back possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioners. (b) Issue a writ, order or direct ion in the nat...
Director General, P.A.C.U.P., Lucknow and Another Vs. Smt. Surya Kumar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC49; 1996ACJ1242; AIR1997All15
ORDER1. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel representing the claimant respondents Nos. 1,2,3 and 4.2. Rajendra Singh met with an accident on 9-3-1991 which resulted in his death leaving behind his wife, and three minor children. The accident was caused by the truck owned by the appellants and driven by the respondent No. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the death of Rajendra Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the vehicle in question as alleged in the claim petition. It was also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of contributory negligence pleaded by the appellant did not arise. The claim petition was allowed in pan on 7-7-1993 awarding an amount of 80,000/- in all to be shared equally, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the recovery of the amount out of which the wife was to get one fourth and the rem...
Director General, P.A.C. and anr. Vs. Sushila Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC600
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel representing the claimant/respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4.2. Ram Naresh met with an accident on 9.3.1991 which resulted in his death leaving behind his wife two minor daughters and his dependent mother and the fattier. The accident was caused by the truck owned by the appellants and driven by the respondent No. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the death of Ram Naresh was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question as alleged in the claim petition. Itwas also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of contributory negligence pleaded by the appellant did not arise. The claim petition was allowed in part on 7.7.1993 awarding an amount of Rs. one lac in all to be shared equally, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the recovery of the amount out of whi...
Vinay Kumar Jaiswal and ors., Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(All)486; [1996]221ITR568(All)
1. All the abovementioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. We have heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Department.3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated April 29, 1994, under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a true copy of which, is annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which the Commissioner of Income-tax has transferred certain cases of the petitioners from Kanpur, U. P. to Raipur, in M. P.4. 'Shri Upadhyay has firstly contended that under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which he had not done. This allegation has been made in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition. In reply Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal has invited our attention to paragraph 10 to the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had themselves filed objection d...
Suman and anr. Vs. Suman Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC1
S.N. Saxena, J.1. Heard learned Counsel at some length. This revision application is directed against the summoning order on the basis of the complaint filed by opposite party No. 1 Suman Devi against her husband, Arvind Kumar and revisionists Suman and Saroj under various provisions of I.P.C. including 498A, IPC. It is unnecessary to give the details of the complaint. It may be mentioned that the complainant had examined herself as a witness before the lower Court and had also produced four more witnesses namely her father Dharam Prakash, mother Smt. Ram Pyari, mother-in-law and Rejendra Prasad. All of them had supported the allegations made by her in the complaint. The statement of the said witnesses which were recorded on oath cannot at this stage, be disbelieved as the witnesses have not been cross-examined. May be that ultimately the above named witnesses are not believed by the Court and the case ends in the acquittal of the accused persons but at this stage it is not possible fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dasi Ram Sri Krishna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR534(All)
1. This income-tax reference has been made to us under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referring the following question for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 18,022 was allowable as a deduction in computing the business income of the assessee ?'2. We have heard learned standing counsel for the Department, None appears for the assessee, although he has been served with notice.3. The assessee is a registered firm and the relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee does business of manufacture and sale of kolhus, etc. It claimed, inter alia, deduction of Rs. 18,022 on account of liability for sales tax in respect of certain sales made to dealers of Bombay. The Income-tax Officer rejected his claim and his order was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, held that the claim for sales tax was allowable since the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting.4. We are of the opin...
Rambali and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ255
ORDERS.N. Saxena, J.1. Heard the learned counsel and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1996, whereby the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh allowed the revision application of the revisionist/complainant Awadhoo Kewat and directed the lower Court i.e. the Court of Magistrate to frame charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. also against the accused persons, as the injury upon the victim was on the vital part of the body and his intestines had come out. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that it was a fit case for trial under Section 307 I.P.C. also. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons have come to this Court.2. The police originally had submitted the charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. also against the accused persons but with the change of the Investigating Officer, a supplementary report was submitted praying that Section 307 of the I.P.C. be dropped, as no case was made out under this provision of the I.P.C. The Magistrate accepted the ...
Jai Bharat Engineering Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD337(All.)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the AAC, wherein he has upheld the action of the ITO rejecting the assessee's application made under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. For the year under appeal, the ITO framed an assessment under section 143(1) of the Act in the following manner :As per P/L account 33,377Add :- Interest to partners 21,168- 1/3 expenses on motor cycle and scooter as in past 1,951- Depreciation to be considered separately 3,829- Out of shop expenses inadmissible, as shown 300 -------Less : Depreciation actually due [loss claimed on motor cyclepurchased and sold during the year and depreciation on motorcycle (new) not claimed in annexure disclosed] 2,282 -------Add : Interest paid to Ramjiwanlal Vishnu Kumar and VishnuKumar Anil Kumar of which Sri Vishnu Kumar partner is thekarta of the HUF 1,766 -------- -------- 3. On receipt of the said order of the ITO, the assessee made an application under section 154 of the Act requesting the ITO to r...
Sanjay Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC607
R.A. Sharma, J.1. In view of the difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Judges, the Division Bench passed the following order referring three questions mentioned therein for being decided by a third Judge:Since we are divided in opinion, we refer the following points of diffrence for being decided by a third Judge in accordance with Chapter VII, Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court:1. If a vehicle which is registered as a taxi meets an accident, whether the Insurance Company can disown its liability to compensate for the loss, if the driver driving the vehicle did not possess a driving livence which entitled him to drive a transport vehicle (taxi)?2. Whether there is any embargo under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prohibiting driving of a transport vehicle (taxi) for private use by a vehicle?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the petitioner was justified in law?Let the papers of...