Allahabad Court September 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.
Babibur Rahman Vs. Rasheed Ahmad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC200
D.K. Seth, J. 1. One of thedefendant, in a suit for eviction, initiated under the Provincial Small Causes Courts' Act being S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 1998 before the Additional District Judge IVth Court, Aligarh. which was decreed, has challenged the same under Section 25 of the said Act before this Court.2. In view of U. P. Amendment of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act, an order passed by the District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising Jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Cause is revisable under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court. The said amendment was brought about by U. P. Small Cause Amendment Act. 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966) and U. P. Civil Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 36 of 1972).3. The learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. Pramod Bhardwaj had contended that the suit could not be maintained before the Small Cause Court since it relates to an interest in the whole property, which is otherwise prohibited by reason of Section 7 of the Code o...
Kakar Sugar Works Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC210
P. K. Jain, J. 1. In the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner was operating a sugar cane crusher under the name and style of M/s. Kakar Sugar Works. He had submitted Option in Form 13 in view of the proviso to Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act. 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) read with Rule 13A of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase. Tax) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Rules). According to the option given by the petitioner, he was to operate his unit from 15.1.95. However, on 7th January, 1995, he claims to have informed the authorities concerned in accordance with the provisions contained in the second proviso to Rule 13A (1) of the Rules that for certain reasons, he will not be able to operate the unit w.e.f. 15th January, 1995. The date from which he will operate the unit will be intimated later on. In is further alleged that on 15.1.95, the petitioner informed the authorities concerned that he would operate his unit from 22.3.95. He deposited the ta...
Jai Kumar Singh Vs. Kallu Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3550
P.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal Is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1986 in Civil Misc. Case No. 122 of 1980 passed by the then First Additional District Judge, Moradabad, rejecting the application of the appellant for issue of probate and letters of administration.2. The appellant had filed an application for grant of probate and letters of administration on the basis of Will dated 20.6.1976 alleged to have been executed by his brother Raj Kumar Singh in his favour and in favour of opposite parties Kallu Singh (father of the executant of the Will) Shyam Kumar Singh, Virendra Singh (brothers of the executant) and one Smt. Brahaspati Devi excluding respondent No. 5 Smt. Sushila Deviwife of the executant. It was alleged in the application that the deceased was married to Smt. Sushilla Devi in the year 1954 at Moradabad. The parties belonged to Scheduled Tribes called Bhantu. At the time of marriage as well as at the time of death. Raj Kumar Singh was employed with the Rail...
Deo Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3583
R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 16.8.75 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Group 2 of Subordinate Agriculture Services, the order dated 17.3.82 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the order dated 23.3.91 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was on 12.10.57 that the petitioner was appointed as Group 3 employee in Subordinate Agriculture Services U.P. and his services were confirmed on 1.1.1974. It was on 2.12.1974 that the petitioner was promoted to a Group 2 post in the said department. It was on 16.8.75 that the petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, on 8.10.76, a charge-sheet was served upon him under the signature of the Project Officer, Gonda, of which th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goverdhan Dass Mahendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR338(All)
1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has in compliance with the direction of this court in ITA No. 162 of 1980 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following questions for the 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 disallowance of the sum of Rs. 12,244 being payment of interest to Mahindra Kumar Sewati Devi could not be made under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 5,322 being payment of interest to Shyam Lal Surender Kumar could not be made under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The said questions are stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated March 30, 1979, passed in ITA No. 3591/Delhi of 1977-78 for the assessmen...
Virendra Prasad Nigam Vs. Kalika Swaroop
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3597
Naseemuddin, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.99, passed by Sri S. P. Singh, IVth Additional District Judge. Barabanki in S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 1984. whereby the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for possession after ejeclment of the defendant-revisionist in respect of the building in suit detailed in the plaint as well as for arrears of rent and mesne profits was decreed with costs.2. Learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party were heard. This suit was earlier decided on 30.5.90 by the then IVth Addl. District Judge. Barabanki, acting as Judge Small Causes Court and the plaintiff's suit was, decreed at that time also for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the shop in dispute. The defendant at that time also filed Civil Revision No. III of 1990 which was decided by this Court on 18.11.98. The case was remanded to th...
Satya NaraIn Sangam Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(All)429; [2000]246ITR304(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question stated to be of law and to arise nut of its order dated April 25, 1981, passed in ITA No. 1696 (All) of 1980 for the opinion of the court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred ?'2. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee at whose instance this reference has been made.3. The facts are that the assessee sent a memorandum of appeal to the Tribunal for the assessment year 1977-78. The same was despatched by registered post on April 5, 1980, vide postal registration receipt No. 1071 from the City Post Office, Mirzapur. When the assessee did not receive any acknowledgement from the Tribunal's Assistant Registrar, it sent a letter of enquiry dated August 1, 1980, to ...
Udai Zinc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT295(All)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order, dated 21st of May, 1999 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 whereby the petitioner's request for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of adjudicated dues has been rejected. The said order is stated to have been served on the petitioners on the 10th of August, 1999.2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. A sum of Rs. 55,545/- has been levied on the petitioner as excise duty for an alleged wrongful claim of Modvat credit. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been levied as penalty. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner against the said levies and applied for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of adjudicated dues, as contained in Section 3...
Satya NaraIn Sangam Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: [2001]246ITR304(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, referred the following question stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dated 25-4-1981, passed in ITA No. 1696 (All) of 1980 for the opinion of the court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred?'We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee at whose instance this reference has been made.2. The facts are that the assessee sent a memorandum of appeal to the Tribunal for the assessment year 1977-78. The same was despatched by registered post on 5-4-1980, vide postal registration receipt No. 1071 from the City Post Office, Mirzapur. When the assessee did not receive any acknowledgement from the Tribunal's Assistant Registrar, it sent a letter of enquiry dated 1-8-1980, to the Assistant Registra...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goverdhan Dass Mahendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: [2001]246ITR338(All)
At the instance of the Commissioner Meerut, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has in compliance with the direction of this court in ITA No. 162 of 1980 under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, referred the following questions for the 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 disallowance of the sum of Rs. 12,244 being payment of interest to Mahindra Kumar Sewati Devi could not be made under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 5,322 being payment of interest to Shyam Lal Surender Kumar could not be made under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The said questions are stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 30-3-1979, passed in ITA No. 3591/Delhi of 1977-78 for the assessment year 1973-74.2. We have hea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »