Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manohar Glass Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(All)637; [1998]232ITR302(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi, has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not accepting in law the view of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it was a case of merely change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer in clubbing the income of both the periods ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the legal issue in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Allahaba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganeshi Lal and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(All)172; [1998]232ITR914(All); [1998]100TAXMAN397(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this court relating to the assessment year 1975-76 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made in this case and that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's view that two separate assessments would have to be made in this case even if the Income-tax Officer considers it to be a case of change in the constitution of the firm under Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B in respect of the expenditure on advertisement, station...
Behari Lal Vs. Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Mandal and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC519
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd July, 1997, transferring the petitioner from Bhupauli Pump Canal to Son Yantrik Nirman Prakhand, Varanasi.2. The petitioner was appointed as Mistri in Lift Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Predesh in the year 1966. At present he is working in the Lift Irrigation Department at Bhupauli Pump Canal, Varanasi. The petitioner was transferred to Narayan Pump Canal, Varanasi on 6th July, 1996. This order of transfer was cancelled on 13.6.97 but the said order has been recalled and the impugned order of transfer has been passed on 3rd July, 1997, transferring the petitioner to Son Yantrik Nirman Prakhand, Varanasi by the Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Mandal, Varanasi, Respondent No. 1. The order of transfer indicates that Bhartiya Kisan Union raised agitation against the petitioner before the Chief Engineer, Son. They arranged picketing etc. The petitioner was transferred on 6th July, 1996. The...
Subhash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC39
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner's services was terminated by an order dated 6.12.1993, Annexure 2 to the writ petition, on the ground that his services were no longer required under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the said order has been issued by way of camouflage with ulterior design. After the respondents had failed to get the petitioner's removed, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found not guilty and was exonerated without any adverse effect. The said order was passed on 24.10.1993, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It appears that there is 42 days gap between the order by which the petitioner was exonerated in a disciplinary proceeding and the order of termination and it pre-supposes the nexus with the order by which the petitioner was exonerated. Learned counsel forthe petitioner also alleges that the petitioner was not ...
Ram Janam Dwivedi Vs. General Manager Ii, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ839All
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order dated April 4, 1990 (Annexure- 4 to the petition) dismissing the petitioner from service, pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding, after holding domestic inquiry and the order dated August 5, 1992 (Annexure 9 to the petition) passed on appeal therefrom have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. His first challenge was that the appellate order did not discuss evidence despite specific orders passed by this Court earlier. His second contention is that there is no proof that the petitioner had mis-appropriated any amount or that the Corporation had suffered loss and, therefore, the charges cannot be said to have been proved. His third contention was that the fare which was in dispute was only about Rs. 9/- and, as such, is too insignificant, even assuming if the charges are proved, to attract the penalty of dismissal, though, however, the guilt may warrant infliction of minor penalty. His fourth contention was that no adequate opportunity was give...
CaptaIn C.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC49; (1997)3UPLBEC1702
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioner was commissioned by the President of India in the Rank of 2nd Lieutenant in the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Corps and was appointed as such in Short Service Commission (S.S.C. for brief), initially on contract for a period of five years on March 8, 1986. The present petition has been filed for the relief of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for grant of permanent commission de novo on or before 30th April, 1994 and also for issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, summoning the records of his A.C.R. and those of other officers of this batch, who were allegedly offered crucial favour of being insidiously granted permanent commission and quashing the selection process including Annexure 4, by which the petitioner's statutory complaint dated 27.8.1991 met the fate of rejection and Annexure 6, which is the record of interview in respect of the petitioner, he...
Vivek Kumar Singh Vs. the Banaras Hindu University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All218
ORDERS.R. Singh, J.1. Impervious attitude of the respondents towards the grievance of the petitioner and their obduracy in not looking beyond the Information booklet have dragooned the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court by means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, canvassing the legality and propriety of the impugned action and orders.2. Chronology of events leading the petitioner to file the present petition is that the petitioner-Vijai Kumar Singh, appeared in the Pre-Medical Test (PMT)/Pharmacy Admission Test (PAT) 1996, conducted by Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, for which he was allotted role No. 27239. He took up his test in Amir Uddaula Islamia Degree College, Lalbagh, Lucknow, which was, one of the Centres of the aforesaid examination. The test had for its basis, a single paper begging answer of 200 objective type questions, within a stipulated duration of 3 1/2 hours. The paper comprised in four sections, namely, Physics, Chemistry, ...
Khushi Ram Dedwal Vs. Additional Judge, Small Causes Court/Prescribed ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC995
Sudhir Narain, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been referred by the learned Single Judge to a larger Bench. The learned single Judge has not framed any question of law but noted certain different opinions in the case decided by certain Benches of this Court on the question of right of a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit filed in the proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. According to the learned single Judge, one view was that ordinarily the party should be permitted to cross-examine unless there are specific reasons to refuse such permission. Another view is that the party is not entitled to cross-examine a deponent of the affidavit unless there are exceptional circumstances shown by him before the authority concerned. In this connection, reference was made to the decision Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority and another, 1982 (1) ARC 449, wherein an obse...
Smt. Usha Rani Vs. Prescribed Authority and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2331
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel and learned standing counsel.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.5.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in moving the restoration application.3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be stated in short. An application for release of shop in question was moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 by respondent No. 2, since deceased. In the said application, legal heirs of the deceased-tenant were impleaded as opposite parties. The said application was contested by all the opposite parties excepting the petitioner. The said application after contest was allowed. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed and so also the writ petition filed before this Court. On the request made on behalf of the petitioner-tenants, this Court allowed one year's time to them for vacating the shop in ...
Uttam Chand Kishan Dass and Another Vs. D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC138
Binod Kumar Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.1. This appeal was filed earlier as a revision and numbered as Civil Revision No. 185 of 1997. Vide Order dated 9.7.1997, a learned single Judge on a prayer made by the learned counsel for the Appellant, permitted to convert this civil revision as an appeal which has been placed before us. By the impugned order the plaintiffs application 122ga praying to call upon the defendant to answer the questions mentioned therein has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100 and the defendant has been directed to answer within one week, and appears to have been passed under Order XI. Rules 1 and 8 of the Code.2. To a question put by us as to how an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order directing the appellant to file reply to interrogatory, Sri Mandhyan, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the order in question has been passed under Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »