Allahabad Court April 1999 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. Chandra Mohan Verma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(All)328; [2000]241ITR484(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act'), for opinion to this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was the Tribunal justified in law in quashing the assessments for the assessment years 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77 ?'2. The said question arises out of the order dated May 31, 1979, passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 113 to 116 (Alld.) of 1979, relating to the assessment years 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77.3. The facts of the case are that the assessee, viz., the late Sri G.P. Verma through his son, Sri C. L. Verma, who is an individual, derived income for the aforesaid assessment years from hire charges in respect of a cinema known as Uttam Talkies situate at Station Road, District Jaunpur. The return for these four years were due under Section 139(1) of the Act, on September 30, 1971,...
Jai NaraIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4109
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 4-7-1984 passed by Sri Daya Ram, the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal of accused-revisionist Jai Narain against his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoria in case No. 2272 of 1982, State v. Jai Ram, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P. S. Khampar, district Deoria, but reduced his sentence from one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - as awarded by the Magistrate to R.I. for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of time to suffer R.I. for a further period of three months.2. In this case, the accused-revisionist was found selling Dhaniya and the sample taken from him by the Food Inspector was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated.3. The learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has not challenged his conviction for the offence. He has confined hims...
Lakhan Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4087
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1981 passed by Sri R.D. Mathur, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.f. No. 63 of 1978 (State v. Lakhan Singh and Ors.), whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh of the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and convicted Jassi and Ram Kishan accused appellant Nos. 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years.2. The prosecutrix in this case is Smt. Pan Kumari, a married woman. Her age on the date of occurrence as estimated on the basis of ossification test by Dr. C.B. Agrawal was 19 years and the said estimate has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no reason to doubt the same.3. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix Smt. Pan Kumari had come to her parent's house in Havetputra in the days of occurrence,...
Super Cassettes Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT810(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India.2. By this petition, the petitioner claims payment of interest on the amount of refund under the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as the Act).3. The case of the petitioner is that by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner succeeded and the petitioner became entitled to refund from the authority concerned. However, since there was delayed payment of more than 3 months the petitioner was entitled to get interest on the amount of refund. The same was denied by the Tribunal vide order dated 28th August, 1998 by observing in para 11 of the order which reads as under :-'As regards the claim for interest for delayed refunds under Section 11BB, we find that the said provision applies to duty ordered to be refunded under Section 11B(2). In the instant case, there is no order passed by the Assistan...
Aditya Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1340
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case No. 2 of 1986 pending in the Court of Special Judge Mirzapur.2. A fair price shop being run by Sadhan Sahakari Samiti (a Co-operative Society) at Persanpur Sindhora in district Mirzapur was inspected by Mewa Lal Yadav, Senior Marketing Inspector. He found some irregularity in the distribution of Sugar and other essential commodities. Accordingly he lodged a FIR under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act against the applicant Aditya Prasad Shukla who was secretary of the Society and Ravi Datt Singh who was incharge salesman.3. The applicant filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court which was admitted and further proceedings of the case were stayed by the order dated 19-5-86. The other co-accused namely Ravi Datt Singh did not file any petition and consequently the case against him proceeded in the trial Court. It has been stated in the affidavit filed i...
Ram Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1257
R.H. Zaidi and R.P. Nigam, JJ.1. In both these writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of these petitions, petitioners, who were stamp vendors, challenge the validity of the order dated 15.12.1987, whereby the licences of the petitioners for stamps vending, have been cancelled by the Additional Collector, Hardoi.3. It appears that the petitioners were granted licences by the Collector for selling stamps, in exercise of powers under Rule 150 of the Stamps Rules read with Section 74 of the Stamps Act. on 12.4.1983 and 2.3.1987 respectively and since then, the petitioners have been vending the stamps. The licences of the petitioners used to be renewed from time to time, in accordance with Rules. All of sudden, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, t...
Vijay Kumar Vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector, Pilibhit and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1751; (1999)2UPLBEC1276
Binod Kumar Roy and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Thepetitioner, a 'Document Writer' within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Document Writers Licensing Rules. 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.5.1993 passed under Rule 16 (I) of the Rules by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Ex-Officio. District Registrar, Pilibhit, as contained in Annexure-2, suspending his licence with immediate effect on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice as contained in Rule 16 (2) of the Rules which lays down that no order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed unless the document writer has been given an opportunity of being heard in his defence.The Submissions :2. Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, contended with reference to the statements made in paragraphs 5 to 7 and 11 of the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioner before pa...
Shyam Stone Co., Chopan Vs. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2148
Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is the second writ petition of M/s. Shyam Stone Co., Basically the issue is whether the State-respondents could impose royalty on the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,36,565.36. The petitioner had applied for a lease for a period of five years in village Billimarkindi, Pargana Agori, Tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra, for excavation of stones. Whatever rights the petitioner had applied for, the application could only be made under the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 31116 of , 1994. M/s Shyam Stone Co. v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others.2. Though the reliefs sought are different than the submissions, the contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the royalty which has been imposed, coupled with the demand of compound interest on it, is not in accordance with the law. The petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, in another writ petition, the High Court had ordered ...
ishwar Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(All)373; [2000]244ITR146(All)
S. L. Sarap, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred fay the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss incurred by the assessee in confiscation of gold, etc., seized and confiscated by the Customs Department was not allowable deduction from the business income of the assessee, as determined ?'2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows :The assessee is an individual and carries on business as a goldsmith. The assessment year in question is 1971-72 and the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1971. As a sequel to a raid carried on by the Customs and Central Excise authorities at the residence of the assessee on October 7, 1970, the Income-tax Officer made the following additions after giving an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why such addition...
Babhoti Yadav Alias Vibhuti Yadav Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1113
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Project Manager (respondent No. 2) dated 31-12-1997 retiring him from service on attaining the age of superannuation.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition lies in a narrow compass and centres round to the point as to whether an employee can be retired from service on the basis of the subsequent medical report altering the earlier date of birth recorded in the service book without affording him an opportunity of hearing.3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed against Class IV post on 16-11- 1977 in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited (for short the Corporation) and was posted as Chaukidar of Mechanical Store of the Bridges Corporation Unit, Goindwala, Punjab. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Bijnor on 1-10- 1979 and remained there till 30-11-1983 wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »