Allahabad Court July 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.
Santosh Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ984
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-5-1979 passed by Sri Raman Prakash, the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 1977, State v. Santosh Kumar, convicting the present accused- appellants of the offences under Section 302/149 IPC, 307/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentencing each one of them to undergo Imprisonment for Life R. I for 4 years, R. 1. for 1 year and R. I. for 18 months respectively.2. The prosecution story as disclosed by Hargu Lal informant, PW-1 in his testimony at the trial was that Nidhi Raj, Rajendra Singh, Shoorvir Singh, Ashok Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Singh, Hem Raj, Mahipal Singh, Mahendra Singh alias Surendra Singh, Raj Pal Singh, Om Prakash and Santosh Kumar, accused were of the same community and were members of Congress Party ,-that he and his brother Lajpat Rai deceased and others were members of Janata Party, that in the election for Lok Sabha in June, 1977 he and the deceased were on...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT39(All)
B.M. Lal, J.1. This petition involves interpretation of Notification No. 146, dated 12-10-1974 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) New Delhi. The Notification was issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 1944. By the Notification Central Government exempted sugar described in column (2) of the Table given in the Notification, from so much of excise duty leviable thereon, as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (3) and (4) of the said Table. For brevity, only relevant portion of the Notification referred above dated 12-1-1974 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is reproduced herein below:'NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISESG.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Centra] Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excis...
Naharwar Engineering Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1997LC49(Allahabad); 1997(94)ELT293(All)
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 19-3-1982 (Annexure 7) passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut and the order dated 18-6-1982 (Annexure 9) passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.2. This fact is not disputed that petitioner No. 2 M/s. British Motor Car Company Ltd., is proprietor of the units M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works, i.e. the petitioner No. 1 and M/s. Ved Engineering Works, Jallundur. M/s. British Motor Car Company and its subsidiaries named above submitted one annual report for the Units disclosing profit and loss accounts. The firms have common distributors, common directors and common balance sheet, and the Units belong to the same manufacturer i.e. M/s. British Motor Car Company.3. The short facts leading to this petition are as under.4. A show cause notice under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short the Act) was issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division II Ghazi...
Deen Dayal Sodh Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2682]; (1997)ILLJ982All
A.B. Srivastava, J. 1. The simple question involved in this writ petition is regarding the powers and jurisdiction of the Labour Court to recall an ex-parte Award. In this case, the Labour Court, Gorakhpur which was seized of the Reference, rendered its Award on September 30, 1982, which was published on November 5, 1982, reinstating the employee, the respondent No.3, and awarding compensation. On November 17, 1982 an application on behalf of the petitioner employer was moved under Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for setting aside the Award on the ground that the petitioner's representative Shri Om Pra-kash Srivastava was ill and as such the non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner was for sufficient cause. This application was opposed by the other side. 2. By the impugned order dated January 25, 1983 the Labour Court rejected the said application under Rule 16 on the sole ground that the Labour Court is not competent to set aside an ex-parte...
Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Ahsan, P.O., Labour Court Iv and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2691]; (1997)IILLJ558All; (1996)3UPLBEC2153
A.B. Srivastava, J. 1. Two main grounds upon which this writ petition was founded are that the Respondent No. I the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court IV, U.P. Kanpur was under law not eligible to be appointed to the said post and secondly that the award in favour of the Respondent No. 2, the workman, was rendered ex-pane and recall application having been filed by the petitioner employer within the time prescribed and there being sufficient cause, the ex-parte award deserved to be set aside. As far as the ground relating to the appointment of the Presiding Officer being null and void and consequently the proceedings also liable to be quashed is concerned, this question was decided as preliminary issue on April 6, 1933 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Agarwala for reasons given in Civil Misc. WritPetition No. 14416 of 1981 decided on the same date held the appointment to be valid in law. 2. Now there remains the question with regard to the validity or otherwise of the order passed by th...
The State of U.P. Vs. Shiva Pratap Son of Gappu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1664
N.L. Ganguly, J. 1. This Government Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 31-7-80 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 249 of 1979. The State proceeded with the sessions trial against the opposite parties Shiva Pratap, Indrapal, Kallu and Kandhai, accused-respondents under Section 302/34 IPC. The Sessions Judge, Fatehpur was pleased to aquit the respondents of the charge.2. We have heard Sri Mahmood, learned A.G.A. and perused the record in detail.3. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged at 10.35 a.m. on 24-9-79 at P.S. Jahartabad Distt. Fatehpur for the occurrence which took place the same day at about 8 a.m. in Village Faizabad situated at a distance of 4 miles south of the police station. The prosecution case depended on the evidence of eye witnesses Ram Autar and Brij Lal, PW 1 and PW 5, respectively and the evidence of Dr. V.K. Tiwari (PW 2) who had conducted the post mortem examination. Besides the formal witnesses of PW 3 Ram Singh, Head Constable, PW 4...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Hand Tools (India) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas59(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 31, 1984, passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge,Ghaziabad, decreeing, inter alia, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum.2. Briefly, the facts are that the term loan of Rs. 4,00,000 was sanctioned to the respondent-firm, but actually the loan to the extent of Rs. 3,20,000 was taken by the firm. The loan was advanced with interest at the rate of 16 per cent. per annum.3. A suit for recovery was filed by the appellant against the respondent-firm, partners thereof and the guarantors, which was decreed by the order dated May 31, 1984. The trial court awarded pendente lite and future interest, i.e., from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum only. The interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum was awarded taking into consideration the plea advanced by the respondents that the respondent-firm suffered huge losses....
Motor and General Sales (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(All)133; [1997]226ITR137(All)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the assessee.2. The following questions of law have been framed :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the trucks in respect of which finances on hire purchase finance basis had been advanced by the assessee to the various persons did not constitute the assessee's stock-in-trade and as such there could be no loss on account of the revaluation of the said trucks ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that assessee's claim squarely fell to be considered under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) and that it was not a trading loss entitled to deduction under Section 28 ? 3. Whether, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the debts in question had not become bad during the accounting year under consideration and that the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lalji Singh Govind Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)527; [1997]226ITR905(All)
ORDER--Refusal of registration to firm.Ratio & Held:Even if, an order passed under sub-section (4) of section 184 results in refusing the registration within the meaning of section 185, the same is also appealable. Case Law Analysis:CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC) followed.Application:Not to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.184(4)Income Tax Act 1961 s.185Income Tax Act 1961 s.246...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›