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.
Janjir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2089
ORDERD.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21-9-1996 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur whereby after allowing the revision he has set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and directed the said Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the direction and observation made in the judgment.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were initiated in which the preliminary order was passed so also an order of attachment under Section 145(8), Cr. P.C. A revision was preferred against that order which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 17-4-1995 with the observation that the orders were interlocutory order against which no revision can be maintained. In that order, Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit, the question of maintainability of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in face ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Textile Chemicals Company.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(All)496
BY THE COURT :When notice sent by the registered post could not be served on the assessee the standing counsel was asked to get the assessee served through the Department and file an affidavit of service. The affidavit of service has been filed by the standing counsel which shows that the assessee was served personally. None appears on behalf of the assessee and we have, therefore, heard only learned standing counsel.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the ITO to pass two assessment orders for different periods on the basis of two returns of income filed by the assessee ?'3. The facts as found in the order passed by the Tribunal are that on the death of one of the partners namely Sri Kailash Nath Khanna on 5th May, 1975, the firm stood dissolved by virtue of the provisions contained ...
Smt. Ram Beti Vs. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All80; (1997)3UPLBEC1583
ORDERS.R. Singh, J. 1. Genesis giving rise to the present petition is the order dated 11-4-1997 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Budaun whereby the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 read with Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules as amended up to date, on 30th April, 1997 for discussion and voting on the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner, who happens to be the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sichauli in district Budaun.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner began his arguments, convassing that resort to proceeding of no confidence motion against the petitioner was barred by Section 14(3) of the Act, which postulates that if the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting fpr the removal of the same Pradhan shall be convened within a year of the date of the previous meeting. A perusal of the record bespeaks that previ...
Surendra Kumar Maingi Vs. Dodha House
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ARBLR174(All)
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has been preferred by defendant No. 1 against the order dated 17-1-1992 of 1st Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad by which the application 5-C filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the defendants, their dealers, stockists and distributors were restrained from infringing the plaintiff's copyright existing in art work, label and wrapper by using these as wrappers for Maingi's Todha. They were further restrained from passing off their goods as goods of plaintiff under trade mark Maingi's Todha.2. M/s. Dodha, House, Kot Ka pura, through its partner Subhash Chandra Vig filed O. S. No. 22 of 1990 against Surendra Kumar Maingi, Proprietor of M/s. V. R. K. Todha Sweet House, Kot Ka Pura and Pallu Ram for permanent injunction restraining them from infringing plaintiffs copyright existing in the art work, label and wrapper duly registered under the Indian Copyright Act by using these in the art work involved in defendant's label and wr...
Upadhya and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1637
M. Katju and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. This Writ Petition No. 32974 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 22439 of 1992 are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 32974 of 1991 has prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4-11 -1991 Annexure-3 to the petition and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioner of collecting the fee over the Shastri Bridge and for a mandamus directing the respondents to accept the contract in favour of the petitioner of realising the fee over Shastri Bridge in respect of auction dated 29-10-1991 for the period 1991-94.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel We have also perused the two orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court communicated through a letter of the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India to the Registrar of this Court vide letter dated 22-4-1996. These orders have been passed in S.L.P. No. 9835 of 1994 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Upadhyaya...
New India Assurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Ghanshyam Das and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All383
ORDER1. This revision application under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree D/-8-1-1997 recorded by the District Judge, Mathura, exercising small causes powers in SCC Suit No. 6 of 1994. On an undertaking by the plaintiff-respondents the execution of the decree has been kept suspended till the date of judgment.2. the suit was filed for eviction of the tenant-revisionists from the suit premises situated in the city of Mathura. The defendants had admittedly been tenants on month to month basis in the suit premises on a rate of rent of Rs. 5,705/- per month. Initially the tenancy was created for a period of three years with stipulation for extension of the period up to 3 years more subject to enhancement of rent by 15 per cent. The extended period of tenancy was to expire on 15th Dec. 1993. Before the aforesaid date of expiry, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendants on 20-7-1993 demanding vacant possession of the suit premises...
Suresh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC304
Binod Kumar Roy, J.1. Following prayers have been made in this writ petition:(i) To quash the order dated 29.11.1995, passed by CO., Civil Lines, Jhansi (respondent No. 3), as contained in Annexure-10, directing the application dated 9.12.1995 filed by Jagdish, respondent No. 5 to be registered and investigated to by the Station Officer, Police Station Tehrauli, District Jhansi. (ii) To quash the FIR, as contained in Annexure-9, giving rise to registration of Crime Case No. 100 of 1995, under Sections 498A, 494, 364, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tehrauli, District Jhansi drawn up on the basis of the application dated 9.11.1995 aforementioned. (iii) To quash the investigation in relation to the aforementioned case. (iv) Alternatively direct fresh investigation by CB, CID or any other impartial investigating agency. 2. Perused the writ petition as well as counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears that during lifetime of his wife Smt. Girja Devi, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madho Lal Sualal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(All)420
BY THE COURT :At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal (Delhi Bench) referred the following questions under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act) for 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 amount of Rs. 7,103 collected as purchase tax was allowable as a deduction in computing the business income of the assessee, for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the debit balance in the account of Sri Tara Chand should be adjusted against the credit balance in the account of the partner Dhan Kumar before calculating the interest disallowance under S. 40(b) ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,708 cannot be added as income under S. 40(b) ?'The Tribunal also referred the following question under ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meerut Biri Factory.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)489
BY THE COURT :Pursuant to the order passed by this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act), the Tribunal referred the following questions for 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 amount collected on account of charity was not the income of the assessee and was not includible in its assessments ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest paid to Smt. Meera Agarwal was not disallowable under s. 40(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. So far as question No. 1 arising out of ITA Nos. 113, 114 and 115 of 1979 is concerned, learned Standing Counsel states that the same is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (1978) 116 ITR 60 in which the Court held that when the customers or brokers paid the amounts to the respondent earmarking them for 'Dharmada', tho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›