Allahabad Court May 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.
Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC221
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner has a sugar mill at Gola Gokaran Nath in which it manufactures sugar and for that purpose it brings sugarcane in railway wagons from various can purchasing centres outside Gola Gokaran Nath into the factory premises. Municipal Board, Gola Gokaran Nath, has imposed toll tax on laden vehicles including loaded railway wagons, which enter the limits of the Municipality. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the imposition of toll tax by the Municipal Board.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions in support of this writ petition, namely, (i) the impugned Rules, which provide for realisation of the toll tax from the owners of the goods brought within the municipal limits in railway wagons, is ultra vires being in contravention of the provisions of Section 153(a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); and (ii) Section 3 of the Railways (Local Authorities Taxation) Ac...
Zainul AbdIn Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1922
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner Zainul Abdin was serving as confirmed Driver in Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways at Jaunpur Depot. While petitioner was driving passenger bus No. U P.C 7394 on 18th May, 1962 at about 11.00 A.M. it met with an accident with bullock cart In village Chandpur, P S Rohania in district Varanasi causing death of bullock and a person. For causing this accident petitioner was challaned under Sections 279, 429, 304A I.P.C. and was prosecuted. The Trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced petitioner for six months R.I. which was maintained in appeal and also in revision by this Court. Petitioner was sent to serve out sentence and after serving sentence, petitioner was released from jail on 1st September, 1964. It was the case of petitioner that he submitted joining report on 2nd September, 1964 but he was not permitted to join and ultimately he filed original Suit No. 201 of 1969 in the court of City Munsif, Jaunpur...
Anurag Srivastava Vs. University of Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC881
ORDERA.P. Misra and S.R. Alam, JJ.1. Initially, main relief in this petition was to regularise the limping academic session of the Allahabad University.2. After passing various orders at different stages it was contended by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel, that malady being deep, merely regularising the academic session through orders of this Court, through partially achieved through some efforts and which has yielded some result but still far from as desired. In this pro bona publico litigation filed by the petitioner, it is referred that this University, which used to be called 'Oxford of the East' has reached the stage of total chaos and disorder.3. It cannot be doubted, by various reports published in various newspapers in the last several years, to which, we judicially notice, and from various affidavits so far exchanged between the parties, there is clear indication of a continuous trend of decadence in this Allahabad University. It is true, Universities are not created mere...
Farhat Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1028
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition for quashing the detention order dated 20-6-96 (Annexure-II) and the order of confirmation thereof passed on 29-6-96.2. The said detention order has been challenged on various grounds :3. A plea was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu, relying on an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in Habeas Carpus Petition No. 9907 of 1986, Ram Prawesh Singh v. District Magistrate, Deoria, that the detention order having been passed on 20-6-1996 most of the period of detention has already expired.4. The counsel for the parties have informed us that the question of legality of premature release before the expiry of period of detention has already expired is pending before a Full Bench of this Court, in which arguments have been concluded but the judgment is awaited. In view of the pendency of that matter before the Full Bench, this Court would have to wait for the judgment of that Full Bench and then to act ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(All)533; [1998]229ITR229(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench), referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act') I '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no question of any disallowance in a case where the assessee's income is computed by application of gross profit rate on sales as shown? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee's case comes within the meaning of the exceptions contemplated in Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 91,926made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. The assessee, a registered firm, derives income fr...
Crown Rubber Company and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC99(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of impugned notice dated July 31, 1985 (annexure '3' to the writ petition) calling upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty be not imposed under Section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (now 'U.P. Trade Tax Act') (briefly, 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1980-81.3. The brief facts are that the petitioner applied for recognition certificate under Section 4-B(2) of the Act for the manufacture of rubber products. The recognition certificate was granted and the petitioner purchased raw material, which was, admittedly, used for the manufacture of tubes, used for the animal driven vehicles.4. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is liable to pay penalty, inasmuch as the raw material procured by the petitioner free of tax was used for the manufacture of the goods which were exempt under the law.5. The question for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty ca...
Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway Vs. Second Additional Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ1002All
ORDERP.K. Jain, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated March 22, 1980 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the review petition was allowed by Respondent No. 1.3. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called as the Act) before the prescribed authority. The learned prescribed authority allowed the claim of Respondent No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 2108.58 as wages and Rs. 250/- as compensation. Respondent No. 2 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 802 of 1977 which was heard and dismissed by the First Addl. District Judge, Allahabad vide judgment and order dated February 2, 1978 and the order of the prescribed authority was affirmed, Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. for reviewing the order so far as it related to the award of compensation. The learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad who heard the rev...
Ravindra Nath Rai and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1640
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 2-12-1996, Annexure 2 to the writ petition and the decision which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, and for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 prepare a waiting list of selected candidates of Sub-Inspector Civil Police Examination of 1991.2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel.3. The facts of the case are that 475 posts of Sub-inspector, Civil Police for males and 50 for females were advertised in October, 1991. The petitioners appeared in this examination and they have alleged that they have qualified in the same but since no waiting list was prepared in pursuance of the letter dated 2-12 1996 of the D. I. G. (Karmik), U.P. they were not considered for appointment, The short question is whether there should be any waiting list. This point has been considered by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18930 of 1989, Santosh Kumar Singh v. The State of U.P. an...
Mineral Oil Corporation Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(99)ELT38(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 19th March, 1997 passed by the Custom, Exicse & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/-.2. No counter affidavit has been filed.3. I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel for Union of India.4. The petitioner inter alia is doing job work on behalf of the U.P. State Electricity Board under which used transformer oil belonging to the U.P. State Electricity Board is alleged to have been reclaimed by the petitioner. Its case was that the reclaimed oil is not subjected to any custom duty. This contention was accepted but later a view was taken that the reclaimed oil is a new product and is liable to excis...
Fresenius A.G. and Others Vs. Dalmia Industries Ltd. and Anothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All411
ORDER1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit in the lower Court, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to set aside judgment and order dated 21-11-1997 passed in Civil Revision No. 20 of 1997 (arising out of suit No. 1044 of 1995) by the District Judge, Ghaziabad and the order dated 11th Sept, 1996 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad. Prayer has also been made for staying the suit i.e. suit No. 1044 of 1995 in terms of Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.2. The record of the petition is voluminous but the point is short. There is famous saying that 'if there is a right, there is remedy.' The District Judge has held that no revision petition is maintainable out of the order passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad and he declined to stay the proceeding of the suit in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration agreement entered into between ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »