Allahabad Court September 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.
Saheb Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(100)ELT22(All)
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by several petitioners seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents directing them not to demand or realise any amount from the petitioners on account of excise duty on the stocks of tobacco in respect of the crop year 1977-78, pursuant to the impugned citation.2. The case of the petitioners is that price offered for the crop was too low for the relevant year and, therefore, they requested the respondents to permit the former to use the tobacco as manure for agriculture purposes. When nothing was heard from the respondents, it is averred that the crop was harvested and used as manure for agricultural purposes.3. Reliance is placed on Instruction 31(f) of the Manual of Departmental Instructions on Tobacco Excise Duty, which states that irrespective of whether a demand for duty has been issued or not (or whether or not a consignment has outlived the maximum period of shortage under Rule 27 or 145) the licensee has the statutory righ...
Monika Beads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT14(All)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. Short relief claimed in this petition by the petitioners is that the respondents be directed to sell the goods, seized on 14-3-1996 vide annexure 1 to the writ petition by public auction.3. A show cause notice dated 9-9-1996, annexure 4 to the writ petition was given to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why the goods seized be not confiscated. Reply to the show cause notice is said to have been filed by the petitioners. After the reply having been filed by the petitioners against the show cause notice, adjudication is yet to be made.4. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that pending the adjudication, the respondents be directed to sell the seized goods by public auction as they are perishable in nature. These goods had been seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is permissible under the provisions of the Excise Act. Section 126 of the Customs Act states that where any goods are confiscate...
Om Prakash Patrol and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(74)LC497(Allahabad)
1. This writ petition is filed by several petitioners seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents directing them not to demand or realise any amount from the petitioners on account of excise duty on the stocks of tobacco in respect of the crop year 1977-1978, pursuant to the impugned citation.2. The case of the petitioners is that price offered for the crop was too low for the relevant year and, therefore, they requested the respondents to permit the former to use the tobacco as manure for agriculture purposes. When nothing was heard from the respondents, it is averred that the crop was harvested and used as manure for agricultural purposes.3. Reliance is placed on instruction 31(f) of the Manual of Departmental Instructions on Tobacco Excise Duty, which states that irrespective of whether a demand for duty has been issued or not (or whether or not a consignment has outlived the maximum period of shortage under Rule 27 or 145) the licensee has the statutory right t...
Jagat NaraIn Dwivedi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC118; (1998)1UPLBEC181
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, J.1. The short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of determining inter se seniority amongst the teachers in the lecturer's grade, i.e., whether the date of joining the post in the grade or the date of approval of the order of appointment or promotion in that grade is the relevant date. In the present case,the teachers Sarva Sri J.N. Dwivedi, S.N. Shukla and S.P. Tripathi were duly selected for the subjects--Economics, Geography and Hindi and their selection was also approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools vide orders dated 11.7.1973. The appointment of Sri J.N. Dwivedi and Sri S.N. Shukla was by way of direct selection whereas Sri S.P. Tripathi was approved for being promoted to teach the subject of Hindi in lecturer's grade. Pursuant to the aforesaid approval, the Committee of Management issued appointment letters and delivered them personally to Sri J.N. Dwivedi and Sri S...
Praveen Misra Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC271; (1998)1UPLBEC629
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. In the post of L.T. Grade teacher, a vacancy arose on 31.3.1991 in Keshav Shiksha Sadan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Saldabad, District Allahabad. The vacancy was notified to the Service Commission by the Management on 27.6.1991. Pursuant to an advertisement, the Committee of Management selected the petitioner against the said vacancy by resolution dated 25.10.1992. The petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 26.10.1992. Pursuant to which the petitioner Joined on 1.11.1992. The Management by letter dated 10.11.1992 informed the District inspector of Schools about the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner but the District Inspector of Schools did not take any step to approve the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner due to which the petitioner is not being paid salary though he had been working in the school since 1.11.1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.2. By way of an application for amendment, the petitioner has sought to incor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR618(All); [1998]98TAXMAN388(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1970-71, the previous year for which was the calendar year 1969 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the computation of admissible entertainment expenses under Section 37(2) be made with reference to the business income as a whole and not with reference to each unit of the business (sic) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in issuing general direction to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) to compute deduction under Section 80J after ignoring the rules to the extent to which they are inconsistent with or are in conflict with the parent enactment ?'2. The asse...
Pushkar Mehrotra Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1594
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for Union of India may file counter affidavit within 3 weeks. In the meantime, petitioner shall serve respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 personally in addition to normal mode of service, steps for which shall be taken within a week. Office shall issue notice returnable within a month.2. It appears that for identical reliefs writ petition No. 1533 of 1996 was filed which is pending and by order dated 23-4-1996 it was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 4502 of 1982. On 3-5-1992 a Division Bench had passed the following order in Writ petition No. 1502 of 1982:'Shri Anshuman Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing counsel. So far as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve them through the respective Registrar of the Court within three weeks from ...
Vijay Prakash Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT562(All)
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Annexure-6 to the Writ petition.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that remedy of reference under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is not available to the assessee against the Tribunal's order, inasmuch as the Act stood repealed on 6-6-1990. In this connection, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 may be usefully referred. Clause (e) of Section 6 of that Act when properly read, states that where any Central Act made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act repeals any enactment hitherto made, then unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment...
Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., Bamrauli, Allahabad Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC301
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Notification dated 4th February, 1992 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948, fixing minimum rate of wages in respect of the employees employed in the units manufacturing miniature bulbs and glass products except optical lenses and glass bangles making industry in U. P., is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition,2. Mr. J.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not a manufacturing unit and it does not manufacture any glass product, therefore, it is not covered by the said notification. Secondly he contends that life of the Advisory Board constituted under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (hereinafter called as the said Act) having expired on 15.10.1990 and no Board having been constituted thereafter, the notification is void and is a nullity since it has been issued without consulting the Advisory Board. H...
Burakia Brothers Vs. Saraya Steel Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas192(All)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. Company Application No. A-31 has been filed by Jalan Iron and Steel Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant-objector'), praying for setting aside the offer of Chauri Chaura Steels Ltd. and to accept the offer of the applicant. Application No. A-33 has been filed by Chauri Chaura Steels Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the 'proposed purchaser') praying that necessary directions be given to the official liquidator to hand over possession of the properties of Saraya Steel Ltd. (in liquidation) after accepting the payment of the balance, amount of the sale consideration due for payment on June 21, 1997.2. The relevant facts in brief are that Saraya Steel Ltd. (company in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up on a petition filed by four petitioning creditors vide order dated November 11, 1994. On a report by the official liquidator, this court vide order dated January 10, 1997, directed the movable and immovable assets of the company (in liquidation) to be sold j...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »