Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(1999)DMC398
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. This application has been filed to stay the proceeding of Case No. 528 of 1993, under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code initiated by one Meera Devi against the present applicant. It is stated that initially Smt. Meera Devi filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal Case No. 272 of 1983 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur which was allowed on 5.12.1985 after contest and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 175/- to opposite party No. 2-Smt. Meera Devi and Rs. 75/- to her daughter as monthly allowance. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 298 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur and the revision application was dismissed. Thereafter the present applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 4387 of 1987, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and the same was admitted on 10.4.1987 only on the point of quantum of the maintenance allowance. The aforesaid application under Section 482, Criminal Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1999)152CTR(All)332
ORDERBY THE COURT:At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question relating to the asst. yr. 1979-80 for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that where there is a change in the constitution of a firm, two separate assessments have to be made, one in respect of the income prior to the change in the constitution of firm and another in respect of the income after the reconstitution of the firm.'2. The facts, as stated by the Tribunal, are that the assessee-firm was constituted by several partners; one of them, namely, Shri Gulab Chand died and another partner, namely Shri Narain Das retired from the firm. The remaining partners, however, inducted some new partners and a minor to the benefits of the partnership.The ITO clearly stated that in paras 8 and 9 of the partnership deed dt. 18th March, 1971, it was clearly stated that death would not result into dissolution of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC776
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing a revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereunder while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner preferred by him under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the tenure-holder of the land in dispute has been restored, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order passed by the revising authority.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. In this case, the publication of the notice contemplated under Section 9 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC373; (1998)2UPLBEC1105
S. P. Srivastava, J.1. The abovementioned two writ petitions are directed against the same order dated 17.7.95 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University refusing the grant of recognition contemplated under Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 to both of the rival Committees of Management seeking recognition as a duly constituted Committee of Management for running and managing the Ratan Sen Degree College. Bansi basing their claims on two elections claimed to have been held on 16.4.95 and 29.1.95.2. The election claimed to have been held on 29.1.95 is alleged to pertain to Raja Ratan Sen Shiksha Parishad Society while the election claimed to have been held on 16.4.95 is alleged to pertain to the Ratan Sen Degree College Society, Bansi.3. The Vice-Chancellor under the impugned order has refused to grant recognition to the rival Committees of Management claimed to have been elected on 29.1.95 and 16.4.95 providing, however, that the matter in regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1998]233ITR32(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Following the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1976-77 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the evidence and material other than the partnership deed dated January 20, 1973, could be considered for ascertaining the shares of partners in profits and losses on the minor becoming major ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that Instruction No. 1161, dated April 4, 1973, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes was binding on the Commissioner of Income-tax while passing the order under Section 263 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in view of the Allahabad High Court decision in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)146CTR(All)513
OM PRAKASH, J. :Following the direction given by this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act), the Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the asst. yr. 1976-77 for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the evidence and material other than the partnership deed dt. 20th January, 1973 could be considered for ascertaining the shares of partners in profits and loss on the minor becoming major ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Instruction No. 1161 dt. 4th April, 1973 issued by the CBDT was binding on the CIT while passing the order under s. 263 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in view of the Allahabad High Court decision in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad vs . Addl. CIT & Ors. : [1978]115ITR858(All) the Tribunal was legally correct in modifying the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC390; [1998(79)FLR82]; (1998)3UPLBEC1872
D.S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ.1. The petitioner, Vikrama Nand Uniyal, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order Annexure 5, dated 9th October, 1979, by which he has been dismissed from the post of Conductor in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation). The petitioner also prays for quashing of order Annexure 9, dated 25th January, 1984, by which U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, Lucknow dismissed his petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 1st June, 1966 in the State Transport Department of U. P. Roadways at Dehradun Depot and his appointing authority at that time was Assistant General Manager, Dehradun Region, in the year 1972. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was established and the services of the petitioner were given on deputation to the Corporation. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner in which there were thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC423; (1998)1UPLBEC260
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner--Guru Charan Singh Bagga has prayed that the letter, a copy of which is Annexure 9, which was received by him in the month of March, 1995, be quashed and the respondents be directed to pay service gratuity, service pension, group insurance amount, G.P.F., commuted value of pension, along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay arrears of honorarium @ Rs. 25 per month w.e.f. January, 1989 till the date of superannuation and also refund the loan of Rs. 5.000 taken by the department from the petitioner, with interest. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri B. N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner was serving as Accounts Clerk in N.C.C. Group Headquarters, Kanpur. He retired in August, 1994 and submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC369
D. S. Sinha and O. P. Jain, JJ.1. Heard Shri Shree Prakash Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. N. Shukla, learned standing counsel representing the respondents.2. By the impugned order dated 8th March, 1991 the Collector. Ghazipur has declined to pay to the petitioners sale proceeds of the essential commodities seized for violation of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the ground that the question of payment of sale proceeds would be considered by the competent court dealing with the case under Section 3/7 of the Act and that he had no Jurisdiction to do so.3. The court has carefully scrutinized the impugned order and is of the opinion that it is in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 6A of theAct.4. Conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the Act makes it clear that sale proceeds of essential commodities which is seized and sold under Section 6A of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC381; (1998)2UPLBEC1101
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Challenging the order dated 30.11.1987 whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming himself to be appointed as a demonstrator was initially suspended by order dated 10.8.1987. The said order was challenged in a writ petition which was disposed of without interference and with a direction that if the petitioner makes a representation, the same shall be decided. The petitioner complains that although the petitioner made representation before the District Inspector of Schools in terms of the aforesaid order, but his service was terminated by order dated 30.11.1987 by the Principal of the Institution concerned. Even after the District Inspector of Schools was approached by the petitioner, his application was rejected by order dated 29.12.1987. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner was appointed as Class IVth employee and there was no post of demonstrator ...
Tag this Judgment!