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.
Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1297
ORDERM.L. Singhal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the correctness of the order dated 31-7-1984, passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, whereby the application of the petitioner for being supplied copies of the statements of his witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and copies of the affidavits,1 have been rejected.2. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.3. On 12-11-1982 an F. I. R. was lodged against the petitioner under Section 307, I.P.C. After investigation the accused was charge-sheeted and the petitioner is facing trial in S.T. No. 116 of 1984 State v. Ranjeet Singh arising out of the said crime under Section 307, I. P. C. The case was investigated by the two Investigating Officers, namely, S. I. Mahendra Singh and S. I. Sheo Ram Sharma. The first I. O., Shri Mahendra Singh, submitted Final Report. Subsequent S. I. Shri...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishi Vikas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(All)272
ORDERBy The Court:The Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner, Allahabad, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 86,260 realised by the assessee from its customers during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 did not represent the income of the assessee and was not taxable in its hand ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76, During the year, the assessee inter alia dealt in the purchase and sale of fertilisers and seeds, etc. The assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer on a total income of Rs. 64,768. However, it was revised by the Commissioner purporting to exercise his power under section 263 of the Act and he brought to tax an additional amount of Rs. 86,260 which represented an extra sale proceeds of the old stock of fertil...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govind Ram and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(All)379
ORDER By the CourtAt the instance of the Commissioner, Allahabad, the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directing the Income Tax Officer not to club the incomes for the periods 5-11-1975, to 23-10-1976 and 24-10-1976 to 31-3-1977 and to assess the income separately ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The firm consisted of six persons. On 23-10-1976, one of the partners Girdharilal retired. Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted with the remaining partners. The assessee submitted two returns of its income, one for the period 5-11-1975 to 3-10-1976, and the other for the period 24-10-1976 to 21-3-1977. The assessee claimed two separate assessments for the aforesaid period. However, the I...
Devendra Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC104
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has made the following prayer In the present writ petition :(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to forthwith declare the result of the petitioner for the post of Titter Instructor' in persuance of the advertisement No. 3/94-95 of the respondent No. 2 within three weeks from the date of the order of this Court positively. (b) To issue any other writ direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem lit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'2. It is averred in the present writ petition that he had moved Writ Petition No. 3012 (SS) of 1996 before the Lucknow Bench on which an interim order was passed on 7.6.1996, a copy whereof is filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, an application for declaring the result was made before Lucknow Bench in the said writ petition which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that the said application was dated 12.8.96. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shangloo con...
Anurag Pathak Vs. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC225; (1997)3UPLBEC1710
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the relief to quash the relevant provision in Rule 1.5 of Part two of the Building Construction bye-laws of the respondent No. 1 by which it has been provided that the land having 200 sq. meters area or above shall alone be allowed for building construction in Civil Lines Zone of Allahabad, and for a mandamus to the respondents to accord sanction to the plan submitted by the petitioner.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. By order dated 6.8.1997, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time for filing counter-affidavit. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that writ petition may be heard and decided finally without counter-affidavit.3. The petitioner is an advocate practicing in this Court. On 28.8.1996 he purchased freehold land together with structures on it No. 3/A1, Dr...
Kashmir Singh Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge, Meerut and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC701; (1998)2UPLBEC1028
D.K. Seth, J.1. Against an order of dismissal an appeal was filed before the Commissioner which stood rejected. Against the said order a Civil Suit No. 535 of 1969 was filed. During the pendency of the suit, U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act came into force. The said suit was there upon transferred to the Tribunal which found that the order of dismissal was void and illegal and had set aside the order of dismissal. In the said suit, the learned tribunal had couched the order in the following manner :'Suit No. 535 of 1969 of the Court of the Munsif city, Meerut is decreed with costs which we assess at Rs. 150. The order dated 5.7.67 of the Collector, Meerut removing the plaintiff from service is declared to be void and illegal and the plaintiff is declared to continue in service and he shall get all its benefits according to rules. However, the punishing authority shall be free to take disciplinary action against him from the stage of filing reply to the charge-sheet if so advised.'The ...
Ram Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC706
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. This petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 19.6.1997 served on the petitioner under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.3. A Division Bench of this Court in Ballabh Chaubey v. A.D.M., Mathura, Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1996 and Rajesh Pal v. A.D.M., Varanasi, Writ Petition No. 1818 of 1996, has already taken the view vide their judgment dated 22.1.1997 that a writ petition against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act will not be maintainable. The Division Bench has distinguished the judgment of the Full Bench In the case of Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P., 1981 ALJ 897, and has held that in Ramji Pandey's case the question whether a writ petition against a show-cause notice should be entertained was not considered.4. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Ballabh Chaubey's...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Munjal Shoes Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(All)211; [1999]235ITR316(All)
1. In pursuance of the directions issued by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following two questions 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 holding that as and when the assessee effected the purchases of shoes from cobblers, the assessee's liability to pay the tax in respect of such purchases accrued and that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction of this amount of purchase tax in the year of purchase ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 34,971 in the computation of its income ?' 2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1975-76, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1975. During that yea...
Smt. Vibha Singh Vs. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Nideshala ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1977
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 6-8-1997 from Hastinapur to Meerut on her request, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, By an order dated 15-9-1997 petitioner has been transferred from Meerut to Daurala in order to accomodate one Smt. Kamlesh Singh at Meerut from Daurala. The impugned order of transfer contained in Annexure-5 does not mention as to whether the said transfer order has not been issued on administrative necesity or otherwise. The petitioner had been transferred on 6-8-1997 on her own request to Meerut. Nothing has been disclosed as to why the respondent has transferred the petitioner again when she had joined at Meerut only 8-8-1997 within short span of time. Mr. Vivek Kumar Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, dated 4-8-1997. Relying on the said order Mr. Birla contends that the petitioner could not be transferred from Meerut to Daurala without the ap...
State of U.P. Vs. AmIn Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1964
ORDERN.S. Gupta, J.1. This is a Government Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 22-10-1991, passed by Sri Janardan Singh, the then IXth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, acquitting the accused respondent Amin Beg on the charges under Section 409 IPC.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :-On 14-10-88 Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena, P.W. 1 who was then working as Deputy Divisional Inspector North Bareilly in the postal Department lodged a written report with police-station Izatnagar, district Bareilly with the allegation that on 21-9-83 Sri Ambika Prasad Joshi and Smt. Geeta Joshi of Base Office, Air Force Station Bareilly opened a Recurring Deposit Account No. 15761 for Rs. 100/- per month. Till August, 88, they had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- into the said account. It was revealed that the deposits made by Sri Ambika Prasad Joshi for the period from June, 1985 to August, 1988 were riot accounted for in the Account of the Post Office, whereas, the entries...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »