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.
Munna Babu Vs. Smt. Shanno Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1990
ORDERA.N. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner and opposite party are husband and wife respectively. Admittedly, they were married sometimes in the year 1985 under the Muslim Act. On 7-2-86, Opposite Party moved an application Under Section 3(2) of Muslim Women Protection of Rights On Divorce, Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for maintenance allowance, for Rs. 11,000/- as MEHAR and recovery of ornaments and properties and other ornaments given to her before, at the time and after marriage. The list of such items was given alongwith the application which includes ornaments, utensils, cycle, tape-recorder, sewing machine and clothes etc. It was alleged by her in her application that after the marriage she resided with the petitioner but the petitioner used to beat her on one pretext or the other and his family members used to say that very little dowry was given. The petitioner used to threaten opposite party that either she should bring a Scooter from her father or else he would ...
Carbon India Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)402
BY THE COURT :By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned demand notice as well as the impugned assessment order, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, giving rise to the demand notice.2. Short submission of counsel for the petitioner is that a plea was specifically raised before the assessing authority that notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 had not been served on the petitioner before assuming jurisdiction for reassessment, but the assessing authority omitted to consider the same. He further submits that the petitioner had come up to this Court earlier also by way of a writ petition challenging the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, 1961, for the same reason and then by a judgment dt. 8th November, 1996, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground that the question of the notice issued under s. 148 not being served was not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact. The Court, however, observed in t...
Smt. Parveen Azad Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Badaun and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC519
Sudhir Narain, J.1. There are common questions of law and fact in these two writ petitions and they are being disposed of jointly.2. The dispute relates to house No. 397, Civil Lines, Mal Godam Road, Badaun. One Jalaluddin was owner of this property and Ramesh Chandra Gupta was its tenant. He was transferred and on his transfer the building was declared as vacant in the year 1990. After declaration of vacancy, it was allotted to Sri P. C. Agarwal on 20th February, 1991. Jalaluddin, owner of this property, sold the house in question to Mishri Lal and his son Yogendra Pal by registered sale deeds dated 5th March, 1993 and 20th March, 1993. Sri P. C. Agarwal was in Government service. He was transferred to another district. On 24.1.1994, the landlords filed application for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that P. C. Agarwal has vacated this house on his transfer to another district. The accommodation in question be treated as vacant. They need the accommodation bona...
Shyam Swarup Gangwar Vs. U.P. Co-operative Industrial Service Board an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC2018
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner, a Junior Branch Manager posted at Disaratganj Branch of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bareilly during the period of 1983-84, having been superseded by an order dated 14-5-1984, was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings with the service of a charge-sheet dated 11-12-1984 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner alleged that his requests for inspection by his letter dated 18-12-1984 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), was declined by the enquiry officer. While declining such permission, the enquiry officer by a letter dated 9-1-1985 asked the petitioner to submit his reply within one week. By his letter dated 17-1-1985, the petitioner once again asked for inspection of the record before submitting his reply. Ultimately on 15-2-1985 the petitioner was compelled ro submit his reply without being afforded opportunity of inspection. The petitioner by his letter dated 19-2-1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) asked for permission to adduce evidence. Despi...
Kalloo and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ648
ORDERD.C. Srivastava, J.1. The above criminal revision and the writ petition have been filed challenging the order dated 10-4-1997 of Additional Sessions Judge III, Jaunpur hence both are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts essential for disposal of these two cases are that on police report, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated and preliminary order was passed on 24-1-1997. The second party Shiv Nayak moved an application for attachment of the house and shop under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. on 4-2-1997, this application was allowed and attachment under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. was ordered. Revision was preferred against the order dated '4-2-1991 which was an order under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. This revision was partly allowed and partly rejected under the impugned order dated 10-4-1997. The direction has been that attachment of northern and southern shop shall be released and the attachment of remaining property shall remain in force. Revision has ...
Smt. Pramila Gupta Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1715
S.K. Phanjdar, J.1. This writ petition was heard along with W. P. 22632 of 1994 by the self same petitioner against the four of the respondents in the earlier writ petition. In the instant writ petition (No. 7582 of 1984) the petitioner challenged two orders as per Annexures 9 and 13 to the writ petition Annexure 9 is an order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Agra, dated 5-10-1983. By this order, a represention of respondent No. 5, Manorama Sinha was allowed. The present petitioner, thereafter, lodged an appeal before the Director of Education and through the paper in Annexure 13 to the writ petition dated 24 3-1984, the Director of Education, (General 1), Anubhag 1, Allahabad, rejected the appeal, not on merits but on technical grounds. These two orders, according to the petitioner, were bad in law who claimed that she should have been appointed to the post of teacher in Hindi in Prem Devi Agrawal Girls Inter College, Mathura managed by present respondent No. 4.2. The sub...
Ram Naresh Chaudhary and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2346
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These petitions have been filed for quashing the orders dated 24-4-93 and 30-4-93 passed under Sections 68-E and 68-F of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by respondent No. 2. The controversy raised in the writ petitions is identical and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order. The writ petitions have been heard along with the records of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 12529 of 1993 and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 15948 of 1993.2. Chapter V which deals with forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic was inserted by Act 2 of 1989 in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act with effect from 29-5-1989. Section 68-E provides for identifying illegally acquired property and Section 68-F provides for seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property. The material part of Section 68-A of the Act, which is relevant for the decision of the writ petitions, is reproduced below :68-A. (1)...
Modi Xerox Limited Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: 1997LC10(Allahabad); 1998(98)ELT589(All)
ORDER1. Admittedly, the petitioner a Public Limited Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of photocopying machines, which are being sold in retail.2. Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (briefly, the 'Rules') runs as under :-'Rule 6. If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under Rule 4 or Rule 5, and -(a) where such goods are sold by the assessee in retail the value shall be based on the retail price of such goods reduced by such amount as is necessary and reasonable in the opinion of the proper officer to arrive at the price at which the assessee would have sold such goods in the course of wholesale made to a person other than a related person :Provided that in determining the amount of reduction, due regard shall be had to the nature of the excisable goods the trade practice in that commodity and other relevant factors -'3. Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act for short) runs as follows :-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijai Kumar Rajesh Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(All)582; [1998]231ITR625(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench, Allahabad), referred the following question relating to the assessmentyear 1974-75 for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly allowed registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Assessing Officer in his order passed under Section 185(1)(b) of the Act held that the partnership deed is defective and the firm is not entitled to registration. 3. The constitution of the assessee-firm is as under : 1.Sri Sechan Ram S/o Late Hari Das AM major partners20%2.Sri Ghasi Ram S/o Sri Ganga Ram '07%3.Sri Puhawashi Prasad S/o Ghasi Ram13%4. Besides the major partners following minors were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership : 1.Ram Kumar S/o Khyal ChandAll minor partners20%2.Pradeep Kumar S/o Ram Shog,,20%3.Deepak Kumar S/o Kashi Nath,,20%5. Clause 5 of...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. R.K. Wires Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC415(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this revision petition under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 the Commissioner challenges an order dated September 16, 1992 by which the Commissioner's appeal arising out of the dealer's assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 has been dismissed.2. I have heard Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.3. The dealer manufactures aluminium conductors which are supplied to the electricity authorities and are used for supporting the electricity poles installed for transmission of electrical energy. The question is whether the said conductors are taxable as unclassified item or as electrical equipments, plants and they are accessories required for generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy or they are electrical motors or parts thereof taxable as unclassified items and taxable at the rate of 3 per cent or in the later category, they are taxable at the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »