Allahabad Court October 1997 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.
Bhairav Lal Verma Vs. Union of IndiA. Mohd. Farooq V. Cit. (Civil Misc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)16
A Division Bench has referred these two petitions to Full Bench 'to decide as to the meaning of the word voluntary in s. 273A of the IT Act and s. 18B of the WT Act and in particular to decide whether a disclosure subsequent to search and seizure is necessarily a 'non-voluntary disclosure'.2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have challenged the orders passed by the CIT under s. 273A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) rejecting their applications for waiver of penalty.The learned counsel for both the parties have stated that ss. 271 and 273A, as they were before 1st April, 1989, on which date they were amended, will apply to the present cases, because the petitioners in both the cases have made the disclosure and applications for waiver of penalty before the said date. Relevant parts of unamended ss. 271 and 273A are reproduced below :'Sec. 271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.(1) If the AO or the Dy. CIT(A) or the CI...
D.M. Industries Firm, Bangalore and Another Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC489
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is directed against an order dated 11.9.1984 of 1st Additional Civil Judge. Aligarh deciding issue No. 1 on jurisdiction against the revisionists. None appeared for the opposite party. Hence, learned counsel for the revisionist was heard and the impugned order and summoned record were perused.2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists has been that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit on two grounds enumerated in para 2 of the written statement. The first ground was that no part of cause of action accrued in Aligarh. The second ground is contained in para 2A of the written statement where it is stated that the defendants made all such transactions and deals/dealt with its customers including plaintiff only subject to Bangalore jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction of Bangalore courts for any dispute whatsoever.3. The second ground has absolutely no merit. It is only under com...
ShamiuddIn Vs. Additional District Judge (i), Mathura and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC536; (1997)3UPLBEC2203
S.R. Singh, J.1. The controversy involved in this case relates to validity of the election to the office of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dautana, Vikas Khand Chhata, district Mathura which election was held on 18.4.1995 in which the petitioner herein was declared elected as a result of counting of votes on21.4.1995. 2. Indisputedly, the office of Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat was reserved for a male candidate belonging to backward class. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a Muslim backward class candidate. The opposite party Bahori and three others also filed their nomination papers as backward class candidates, but they lost the present election to the petitioner who, as stated above, was declared elected on 21.4.1995. The opposite party Bahori (hereinafter referred as the election-petitioner) then filed an election petition under Section 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for setting aside the election of thepetitioner on the ground that the constituency was res...
Satya NaraIn Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC1b; (1998)1UPLBEC114
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. These cases will be discussed individually. But. they raise an important question of a long forgotten phenomenon of control by Government on an estate known by the expression nazul. Settlements record nazul as an estate, land and property, but there is less modern law available to explain what is the concept of nazul estates. Whatever material is available is virtually lying in the archives of administration and out of use. The administration has forgotten to take guidance from prescribed administrative instructions on how to deal with nazul an estate held by the Government, in public trust not as a private preserve. These cases are not about private rights, but public law of public property and the trust in Government to hold it, be it a small nazul shop in a municipal market, a commercial complex or residential. The principles which govern nazul estates are the same.2. These three writ petitions are in the matter relating to shops, all of them small shops, in the...
Kumaon Mandal, Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC36
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This Writ Petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. The arguments of Counsel for both the parties have been heard. The award was made on 31.10.1992 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court ex-parte. The award was challenged in Writ Petition No. Nill of 1993, wherein, it was observed by the Court that as the award was ex-parte, the petitioner had a right to make an application for recall of the said order and observing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy the Court declined to interfe under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it was directed that if the petitioner makes an application for recall of the ex-pane order, the labour Court shall consider the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties Counsel and pass an appropriate order within a period of 2 months from the date the application for recall of the ex-pane award is made and that the application for recall shall be filed within one mon...
Dinesh Chandra Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC238
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.5.1988 passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner for absorption to the post of Assistant Engineer in the service of Jal Sansthan, Agra.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The version of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pump House Superintendent in Jal Sansthan, Agra in the year 1962. One Amar Nath Gupta, Assistant Engineer in Water Works, Agra, resigned on 28th February, 1966. The Administrator wrote a letter to the petitioner to perform the duties on the post of Assistant Engineer and on the basis of the said letter the petitioner started working as Assistant Engineer in Sewaga Pumping Station, Agra.4. The State Government framed U.P. Palika (Centralised Service) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1966) which came into force with effect from July, 1966. The petitioner submitted representation to the State Government for abso...
State of U.P. Vs. Ravindra Pal Singh Lekhpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4190
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri R.K. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The respondent was tried in Special Case No. 2 of 1987 for offences under Sections 161, I.P.C. and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and acquitted by the trial Court (Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh) by judgment and order dated 26-11-1992. It is this judgment and order of the trial Court which is being challenged in this appeal.3. On 16-1-1986 an application (Ex. Ka-1) was given by Virendra Singh and Tej Pal Pal to Sri Ram Kumar Tyagi, Inspector Vigilance, district Aligarh. The said application contained endoresement of Sri D.P. Mishra, A.D.M. Aligarh regarding arranging of trap. The allegations in the complaint were that both Virendra Singh and Tej Pal had applied loan from the Bank under the free boring scheme for small land holders. When the complainants did not receive any in formation about sanction of loan for 7 months they approached Gram Sewak w...
State of U.P. Vs. Syed Muzaffar Abbas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3311
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12-5-1995 passed by III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 409, I.P.C, the State has filed this appeal.2. Heard learned A.G.A. and Sri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.3. In the year 1983 the respondent was working as Assistant Cashier in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was posted at Aligarh. On the night between 11/12-12-1983 11/12-12-1983 between 9.00 to 1.00 p.m. he was on duty as Assistant Cashier and was incharge of the cash at the Aligarh Depot, of the U.P.S.R.T.C. A sum of Rs. 1,57,317.40 paise was allegedly embezzled by him during this period. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent was on duty between 9.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and thereafter he went away after locking the cash coffer and cashiers room .On 12-12-1983 when he returned to duty at about 9.00 a.m. he reported to the Station Incharge that the aforesaid sum wa...
Jabar Singh and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC539
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 rejecting their objection filed under Section 11 (2) of the aforesaid Act.4. This objection, which was filed on 17.8.81 was directed against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 15.5.76 whereunder plot No. 259/2 having an area of 3 bigha 10 biswa of village Tabar Ahtamal and plot No. 1232M., having an area of 18 biswa situate in village Tabar Mustaqil were declared surplus treating the said plots to be the holding of Kapura Singh, the father of the petitioners.5. The petitioners had come up with the case that the plots in dispute which had been declared as surplus initially constituted Sir and Khudkasht and being ancestral Sir and Khudkasht of the joint Hindu Family of which the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(All)427; [1999]235ITR464(All)
1. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the following question relating to the assessment year 1971-72 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in cancelling the order under Section 154 passed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the question is debatable and involves long drawn arguments both on question of law as well as on facts ?'2. In its order dated May 7, 1977, relating to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the Appellate Tribunal observed as under ;'Likewise, for the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer noted that the regular assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on March 30, 1974. The tax payable was computed at Rs. 1,18,69,285. The advance tax paid in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 amounted to Rs. 1,21,0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »