Allahabad Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Basant Cinema
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR396(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference application in which the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a reconstitution of the firm, two assessments had to be made, one for the period prior to the reconstitution of the firm and another for the post reconstitution period ?'2. The facts of the case are that on September 17, 1973, one of the partner of the assessee-firm died and it is alleged that thereafter the firm was reconstituted with new partners. The question is whether one assessment or two assessments in the assessment year 1975-76 could be made. It is settled law that on the death of a partner, the firm stands dissolved unless there is a term in the partnership deed that the firm would not stand dissolved on the death of the partner. From the orders of theauthorities, we are not able to find out whether any such term in the partnership deed exist...
Marvel Vinyals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT622(All)
ORDER1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and stay.2. The petitioner's appeal is pending before the Respondent No. 2 since 25th March, 1996. The petitioner has also moved an application for waiver of depositing the tax imposed upon him and against which an appeal is filed.3. Learned Counsel contends that till date the appellate authority has not passed any order on stay application (made under Section 35F of the Excise Act). However, the authorities are insisting upon the petitioner to deposit the tax.4. If till date the waiver application is not disposed of by the appellate court, we direct that the same shall be disposed of within 15 days from the date of producing a certified copy of this order.5. With this direction, the petition is disposed of finally.6. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges....
Shambhu Saran Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(All)318; [1998]230ITR394(All); [1997]90TAXMAN85(All)
1. After we had passed the order dated April 15, 1996, Shri A.K. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared and requested that since he had not been heard the case may be fixed for the next day, i.e., April 16, 1996. Hence we did not sign the order dated April 15, 1996, and we fixed the case for today for hearing.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gupta has relied on the decision in CIT v. Bansi Dhar and Sons : [1986]157ITR665(SC) and urged that a writ petition is maintainable against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There is no doubt that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition but ordinarily this court insists that a petitioner should resort to his alternative remedy if it is available and this court ordinarily does not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 if an alternative remedy is available.3. In the present case, it appears that an assessment order was passed under Section ...
Madan Rai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1677
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. The appellants Madan Rai and three others tried by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in S. T. No. 150 of 1984 were convicted as under:Accused Madan Rai was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment of life and convicted and sentenced to two years R.I. under Section 440, I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 5007-. In default of payment of fine, R.I. for three years.2. Appellants Sachidanand Rai, Ras Behari Rai alias Panda and Janardan Rai were convicted under Section 440, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, three months R.I. All the sentences to run concurrently.3. Government Appeal No. 2166 of 1985 is directed against the same judgment and order against the acquittal of the appellants Ras Behari Rai alias Panda, Sachidanand Rai and Janardan Rai under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.4. The occurrence took place on 11 th May, 1984 at about 6.30 p.m. in village Lauwadih P. S. Bhanwarkol Distt. Ghazipur when all t...
Basant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT623(All)
K.L. Sharma, J.1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar learned Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department and perused the record. Both the learned Counsels agree that this writ petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the stay /waiver application filed alongwith the appeal has not been properly considered by the learned Tribunal and therefore he submitted another application dated 26-2-1996 pointing out the omissions and the record which were not considered by the learned Tribunal while partially allowing the stay/waiver application. I have perused this application dated 26-2-1996 and find that the learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant had argued before the Tribunal about the illegality of the confiscation order and imposition of fine of Rs. 1 crore but this was not at all considered by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner had also arg...
Prayag Vyapar Mandal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All1
ORDERR. Dayal, J.1. Main point that calls forconsideration in this petition is whether this petition brought under Art; 226 of the Constitution deserves to be entertained as public interest litigation. 2. Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital (hereinafter referred as the hospital) is affiliated to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as the medical college). A lease document (Annexure 4) was executed on 13-2-1996 by the Principal of the medical College, respondent No. 4, on behalf of the Government of U.P. in favour of Rajendra Pratap Singh, respondent No. 7, in respect of a piece of land to establish a medical store inside the campus of the hospital on the terms and conditions specified therein. The petitioners have challenged this lease deed. They have pleaded in para 32 of the petition that the lease was granted under a letter of Director of Medical Education and Training dated 3-11-1995for allowing the opening of a medical store in the hospital campus. One of the r...
Raj Pati Saroj Vs. Regional Administrative Committee, Primary Agricult ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC311
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7-10-1983 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the appellate order dated 18-3-1996 (received by the petitioner on 6-6-1986) Annexure Nos. 5 and 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ of mandamus against the respondents to pay the salary and to treat him in continuous service be issued.2. At the very outset in may be mentioned that this court passed an order on 12-11-1983 that the petitioner be treated in service within a month of production of certified copy of the order. Another order was passed on 12-5-1983 that the petitioner will be paid the current salary in future regularly from the date he joins and question of back salary will be decided at the time of the final hearing. The brief facts are mentioned hereunder.3. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society on 14-5-1978 a...
Roshan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ256
R.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence passed by Sri. S. P. Agarwal, learned V. Addl. Sessions Judge at Meerut in Session Trial No. 89 of 1978 which arose out of crime No. 688/77 P. S. Delhi Gate district Merrut.2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Smt. Chanda Devi (deceased), wife of S.I. Bankat Singh who at the relevant period was posted at Police Station Pilana, was living in a rented room situated in mohalla Indrapuri owned by accused Roshan Singh. The said Chanda Devi was living alone in that room. The portion of the house in possession of Roshan Singh and his family was inadequate so Roshan Singh was in great need for the space occupied by Suit. Chanda Devi and he insisted her to vacate the same. The said Roshan Singh had Aata Chakki in some portion of his house and whenever Bankat Singh used to visit Suit. Chanda Devi, Roshan Singh insisted him to vacate that room. On 25- J 2-77 at about 3.15 p.m. the deceased Smt. Chand...
Willard Storage Batteries Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT59(All)
ORDERA.K. Banerji, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4-3-1996, passed by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the Act in short).2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the averments made in the writ petition. It has been contended that the petitioner has a good prima facie case on merits and the submissions made before the Tribunal has not been noticed. It has further been contended that the petitioner has made out a case of undue hardship under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act. However, the Tribunal has not applied its mind either to this or to the material on record.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the ...
Rajishi Foam therm and Pack Vs. Cegat and Cce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(65)LC153(Allahabad)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against an order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad demanding duty amounting to Rs. 14,38,871.00 and penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- respectively. Before the Tribunal, an application for stay and waiver was filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. Seven Lakh within two months. This order was challenged before this Court by means of a writ petition. On 2.11.1995, this Court refused to interfere with the said order but observed that if necessary, the petitioner can move the Tribunal by filing an application for furnishing security in place of cash deposit and the said application if filed shall be considered by the Tribunal before passing final orders. It appears that such an application was filed and thereafter, the petitioner obtained permission and deposited Rupees Two lacs and prayed for furnishing Ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »