Allahabad Court December 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malik Construction Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR450(All); [1999]106TAXMAN175(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was. legally correct to confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the sum of Rs. 2,00,080 received as interest should be treated as that of payment in the nature of ex gratia payment that cannot be liable to tax ?'2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. During that year the assessee was a registered firm engaged in the business of execution of works contract. It had executed a contract 'Balimela Project' for the Government of Orissa. After the receipt of the said contract in the year 1974 certain disputes arose between the assessee and the contractee (i.e., the Government of Orissa). The assessee claimed that it had to carry...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2777
ORDERJ.C. Mishra, J.1. These revisions have been filed by the revisionists challenging the orders passed under Section 319, Cr. P. C. summoning them to face trial. The common point that has arisen in these cases is whether the Court can summon the accused, against whom no evidence was collected during the investigation, only on the strength of the statement of prosecution witness, who was not cross-examined. In these cases the prosecution witness was examined by the prosecution wherein he disclosed the complicity of the applicant in the crime. The Presiding Officer without giving opportunity to the accused persons, who were already facing trial, to cross-examine the witness summoned the revisionists.2. counsel contended that since the witness was not cross-examined his statement could not be treated as evidence and, therefore, on the basis of uncross-examined testimony the accused could not be summoned. He contended that the Court concerned committed illegality in summoning the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Siddique and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3829
N.S. Gupta, J.1. Accused appellants named above were convicted by Sri Onkar-eshwar Bhatt, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide his judgment and Order dated 12-6-1980 in S.T. No. 366 of 79 under Section 302/149, I.P.C. They were sentenced to under go life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 1000/-each. The accused appellants Siddique, Chootey and Qamruddin were further convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and Section 323/149, I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 147, I.P.C. and six months' R. I. under Section 323/149, I.P.C. Further the accused appellants Majeed, Sattar and Ali Mohammad were convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and Sections 324/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 148, I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 324/149, I.P.C. each. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, they have come up in appeal before this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krisan and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3838
B.K. Sharma, J.1. By his judgment and order dated 11-6-1980 Sri S.N. Saxena, the then IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1979, State v. Ram Krishan and Rameshwar Dayal and in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1979, State v. Ajudhya Prasad Sharma and Smt. Urmila, which were consolidated for a joint trial of all the four accused for various offences, convicted accused Rameshwar Dayal and Ajudhya Prasad for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376,I.PC. and sentenced Rameshwar Dayal accused-appellant to suffer R.I. for a period of three years for the offence under Section 363,IPC, R.I. for a period of six years for the offence under Section 366,I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 376,IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the same judgment. He convicted accused appellant Ram Krishan for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo R.I. for a period often years for the said of...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3800
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. These two revisions by different set of accused persons have been filed challenging the order dated 19-6-97 passed by Sri P. K. Gupta, First Additional Judicial Magistrate Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rampur summoning the revisionist and others under Section 409 and 468, IPC.2. Opposite party No. 2 in the aforesaid revisions namely, Riyasat Khan alias Putti Khan filed a complaint against 30 accused persons, all Engineers in the U.P. Public Works Department, said to be posted at Rampur at the relevant time, for commission of the Offences under Section 467/468/471 and 409, IPC. The allegations made in the complaint were that the accused persons are government servants in Division I and II of the P.W.D. They have committed irregularities and thereby misappropriated government funds and prepared false records, details of which will be given at the relevant time. During the financial year ending March, 1997 several lakhs of Rupees were drawn from government exchequer a...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Rice Mill, Rudrapur, Nainital and Others Vs. State of U.P. and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC733
S.R. Singh, J.1. In this batch of writ petition filed by the licensed Rice Millers, the main question that surfaces up for consideration by the Court, is as to whether the petitioners are liable, qua the Mandi Samiti, to pay market fee on the transaction of sale of rice to the State Government under the provisions of clause 3 (1) of the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1985.2. Petitioners, it is stated, make purchases of paddy for being husked into rice both from inside and outside the market area of Krishi Utpadan Mandl Samities of Rudrapur and Villaspur, but sizeable percentage of entire paddy, it is alleged, is lifted by them from outside the concerned market areas of Rudrapur and Vilaspur, it is stated in the petition that purchases of paddy from outside the market area of Mandi Samities of Rudrapur and Vilaspur take place in those areas and the petitioners pay market fee to the concerned Mandi Samitles on transaction of sale of paddy outside the market ar...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Mani Vs. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonebhadra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1388
Sudhir Narain, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Government Order No. 2657/15-5-97-127/97 T.C., dated 11th August. 1997 and another Government Order No. 4911/15-97-90/73 of the same date whereby the selection for the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Education Board has been confined to such candidates who have obtained certificates from the institutions run by the State Government. The petitioner, Hira Mani, has obtained training in basic education from Buniyadi Prashikshan Sans than, Jaispur, district Sidhi (M. P.). Smt. Klran Kumari, the petitioner, was awarded Teacher's Training Certificate by Bihar Vidyalaya Examination Samiti. These petitioners have been treated as ineligible for being considered for selection to the post in question.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of the State Government was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it derecogn...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohammad Hanif Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC841
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order contained in notice dated 26.8.1997, issued by the Collector, Moradabad, under Section 15(3) of U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (The title of this Adhiniyam has been substituted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 as 'U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961.') (hereinafter referred to as 1961 Adhiniyam), convening the meeting of no confidence motion was originally challenged by means of this writ petition. By an order dated 19.9.1997 the no confidence motion was permitted to be considered as scheduled, but the declaration of result was restrained by this Court. Subsequently, the meeting having been held and the same has also been assailed, since the same was the subject matter of decision of this writ petition.2. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the same on three grounds; (1) The provision of Section 15(3) of 1961 Act being mandatory...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC1885
O.P. Garg, J.1. Both these writ petition deal with the same controversy. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 38406 of 1996. With the consent of the Parties Counsel, counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in the writ petition No. 38406/ 96 shall also be read in the connected writ petition No. 36605 of 1997. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. By means of these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the employment notice No. 1 of 1.996 issued on 1.11.1996 for recruitment of the Constables in Railway Protection Force (for short 'RPF) be quashed and the respondents be directed not to appoint any candidate selected in pursuance of the said notice of employment. It is further prayed that the recruitment made in pursuance of the employment notice No. 2/94 be directed to be given effect to and the respondents be commanded...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Govind Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1173
O.P. Garg, J.1. In these two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a dispute has been raised about the selection and appointment to the posts of Senior Administrative Officer, Sadar Munserim in the Judgeship of Bareilly and the Sadar Munserim in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly.2. In certain Judgeships of this State, there are posts of Sadar Munserim (hereinafter referred to as 'S.A.O.' and 'S.M.' respectively). The post of S.A.O. is the highest in rank in the establishment of class III employees and the next below the post of S.A.O. is the post of S.M. The post of S.M. is governed by the provisions of Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. The post of S.A.O. was created by Government Order dated 19.8.1989 in which it was contemplated that the incumbent who is holding the post of S.M. shall be promoted to the post of S.A.O. Any class III employee in the Judgeship may on the basis of seniority, aspire for appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »