Allahabad Court May 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.
M/S. Himalaya Rice Mill, Motinagar, and Another Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All155
ORDERS.H.A. Kaza, J. 1. While hearing writ petition No. 1333(MB)/1996, the record of writ petition No. 48(MB)/1996 was called for. Para 1to 36 of writ petition No. 1333(MB)/1996 are mere reproduction of paras 2 to 37 of W.P. No. 48(MB)/1996. Para 38 of W.P. No. 1333(MB)/ 1996 is similar to Para 38 of W.P. No. 49(MB)/ 1996. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P. No. 48(MB)/96. On the statement given at bar, learned standing counsel stated that in W.P. No. 1333(MB)/1996, the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 48(MB)/1996 be also read.2. In view of the aforesaid facts, both me writ petitions were heard together and judgment was reserved.3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Govt. Order dated 8-9-1995, issued by the State of U.P. They also prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring clause 1(4) of the notification dated 28-9-1995 ultra vires 10 the Constitution of India and to issue a relea...
Ram Babu and Sons and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(All)310; [1996]222ITR606(All)
1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 80HHC, Explanation (aa), of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Section 80HHC was made to give certain benefits to exporters. However, Explanation (aa) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991, with effect from April 1, 1986. An exception was carved out from the main provision of Section 80HHC. In our opinion, Explanation (aa) was to plug a loophole in the Act since there was possibility that the goods after purchase may not be exported at all and yet the benefit may be claimed. In our opinion, Explanation (aa) is constitutionally valid as it was made to plug a loophole in Section 80HHC. It is settled law that in fiscal statutes greater latitude is given to the Legislature and the Legislature has an option to pick and choose the item which is to be taxed.3. Learned ...
Munna (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ274
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-96 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1995 of that District, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has substantially dismissed the appeal. That appeal itself arose out of the judgment and order dated 25-5-95 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Garautha, Distt. Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 822/ 88. The learned Magistrate had convicted the accused Munna on a charge Under Section 452 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. He was also convicted on a charge under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the FIR, on 4-11-94 at about 6 p.m. Smt. Sharda Devi, the daughter of the complainant, was all alone in her house. Other family members were outside the house. The accused, who is the resident of the same village, committed a criminal trespass with an intention to outrage the modest...
Khan Singh @ Ujagar Khan and Chhotey Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2305
B.K. Sharma, J.1. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of a common judgment dated 1-8-85 passed by Sri P. N. Lal, the then Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 323 of 1984, connected with S.T. No. 368 of 1984 and S.T. No. 370 of 1984, whereby he convicted all the three accused-appellants of the offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced (hem to undergo imprisonment for life and further convicted Chhotey accused-appellant and Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan accused-appellant of the offence under section 25 Arms Act and sentenced Chhotey accused-appellant to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan accused-appellant to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.2. The prosecution story was to the effect that a dacoity took place on 12-2-84 at about 7.30 P.M. in village Kumbhia Maphi. P. S. Khutar, district Shahjahanpur, in which six. dacoits particip...
L.M.L. Limited Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT43(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Gulati appeared for the respondents and they were heard, at length and in detail.2. The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Scooters, having its manufacturing unit at C-10, Panki Industrial Estage, Phase II, Kanpur, invoking the special and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays that the summons dated 5th February, 1996 (Annexure -13 to the writ petition), notice dated 7th February, 1996 (Annexure -15 to the writ petition) and the show cause notice dated 27th March, 1996 (Annexure -16 to the writ petition), in so far as it pertains to the period beyond six months anterior to 27th March, 1996, be quashed.3. From the pleadings before the court, it transpires that preventive team of the Central Excise Division-II, Kanpur, headed by the Assistant Commissioner, Cent...
Smt. Rampati Jaiswal and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All170
ORDERDr. B.S. Chauhan J. 1. By this common judgment we dispose of all the above mentioned writ pelitions.The facts involved in the instant petitions are eye openers and reveal as to what extent the process of Court is abused by litigents to distort the law. This is a unique example where the relief has been sought in contravention of the statutory provisions. On behalf of the petitioners submissions have been made only on the basis of a loophole in the statutory provisions without realising that the Parliament had plugged the said loophole more than two and a half decades ago.2. In writ petition No. I4924of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No.45 1/RTA/96 on Allahabad-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 673, in Writ Petition No. 14925 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. I447/RTA/96 on Pratapgarh-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 786, in writ petition No. 15232 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No...
Smt. Anita Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC454
U.P. Singh, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to admit her in First Year of 3 years LL. B. Degree Course of the Banaras Hindu University for the Session 1994-95 in the supernumerary quota available to the sons/daughters of permanent in service employees of the Banaras Hindu University, claiming that although she is daughter-in-law of the petitioner she is entitled for admission on the supernumerary quota provided for the sons and daughters only.2. In the University Entrance Test (in short 'UET') held on 9-6-1994 for admission in LL B. 3 Years Degree Course of the Banaras Hindu University, the petitioner appeared and she was allotted Rolf No. 56341. She applied for consideration for her application under the reservation quota provided under Clause 16 (b) of the UET bulletin under the heading 'Reservation/Weightage' which provides:'15% supernumerary seats for sons/daughters of permanent in service employees of the Universit...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC372
D.K. Seth, J.1. The Award dated 10th November, 1983 passed by the Labour Court, Meerut, U. P, in adjudication case No. 193 of 1977 (formerly Adj. Case No. 106 of 1976, Lucknow) has been challenged by means of this writ petition.2. Sri D.K. Singh, holding brief of Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the reference made to the Presiding Officer, named in the order of reference, he having retired, the same was transferred to the another Presiding Officer, by name. The said Presiding officer Sri M. Hasan by an order, dated 3rd May, 1982, observed that since the reference was made in the name of Sri Ram Chandra, therefore, the reference cannot be continued by his successor-in-office and, therefore, he had sent the record to the record room. On the basis of an application by an order dated 8-8-1983 the said case was re-opened and proceeded with and thereupon the present award has been given. According to him, the reference having become bad because th...
Ramashanker Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1102
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 134 of 1995 State v. Nanhkau and others.2. Formerly, the accused had engaged no private counsel. Therefore, Amicus Curiae was provided to him at a later stage. On 17-8-95, the accused engaged a private counsel. Thereafter, he prayed that two witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Gauri Shankar and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, who had already been cross-examined by the learned Amicus Curiae, be recalled for further cross-examination. The learned lower Court has rejected this application without assigning any reason.3. In the interest of justice, it is essential that in a serious case like this, under Section 302, IPC the accused be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. This is a question of life and death for the accused.4. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the learned lower Court shall recall the two witnesses aforesaid for cross-examin...
M/S. Tiveni Engineering Works Ltd. and Another Etc. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All420
ORDERS.K. Phaudhar, J. 1. All these writpetitions relate to grant of letters of intent (LOIs,in brief) to different industrial undertakings forsetting up new sugar mills at different places inthe State of Uttar Pradesh. The above petitionshave been filed by existing sugar mills and bycertain competitors and the LOIs have been challenged on different grounds. On the basis of the points raised, writ petitions may be categorised in 3 classes :(1) Petitions in which the guidelines of the Government have been challenged as having violated the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution ; (2) the petitions in which the validity of the guidelines have not been seriously challenged but the action of the Government have been challenged on the ground that the guidelines have been violated; and (3) one petition in which a competitor for a location of a new sugar mill has challenged the LOI in favour of another on the ground of non-observance of statutory provisions of certain Acts and R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »