Allahabad Court December 2002 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.
M.L. Sikaria and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC403
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. By means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 11.8.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur whereby the seven petitioners and Omni Medicare Limited, K.L. Goyal and D.K. Agarwal have been summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said order has been confirmed in revision also by order dated 25.8.1998. Prayer has also been made for quashing the order passed in revision.2. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Mohan, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Pandey for Opposite Party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. have been heard.3. Opposite party No. 2 has filed the complaint alleging that it is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the complaint case Omni Medicare Limited is also a Company and K.L Goyal and D.K. Agarwal and the seven petitioners are the Direct...
Cit Vs. Shyam Sunder and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN596(All)
ORDERHeard counsel for the parties.2. This is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was not the case of mere change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. During this assessment year one of the partner of the assessee-firm Smt. Vidyawati Devi died on 16-5-1980. There is no mention in the partnership deed that the partnership will continue despite the death of a partner. Hence in view of section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, the firm automatically stated dissolved on the death of the partner and hence it is a case of dissolution of the firm and not re-constitution. Consequently there should be two assessments and not one in view of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Empire Estate : [1996]218ITR355(SC) . We...
Cit Vs. Mohan Lal Jagan Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN833(All)
ORDERThis is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following question of law has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, two appropriate assessments for the two periods on the basis of the two returns filed by the assessee were valid in the eyes of law ?'2. It appears that a partner of the firm Jagan Nath died in the relevant assessment year. There was nothing in the partnership deed to the effect that the partnership will continue even after the death of a partner. Hence in view of section 42 of the Partnership Act the firm stood dissolved and there have to be two assessments vide CIT v. Empire Estate : [1996]218ITR355(SC) .3. We, therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Shambhu Nath Mangru Ram Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN251(All)
ORDER1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the interpretation of clause 2 of the deed of partnership dated 31-7-1980, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the firm stood dissolved on the death of Smt. Patti Devi, who was one of the partners of the firm ?2.Whetheron the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the periods before and after the death of Smt. Patti Devi cannot be clubbed ?'2. It appears that a partner of the firm Smt. Patti Devi died in the relevant assessment year. There was nothing in the partnership deed to the effect that the partnership will continue even after the death of a partner. Hence in view of section 42 of the Partnership Act the firm stood dissolved and there have to be two a...
Cit Vs. Adarsh Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN255(All)
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income tax Act in which the following question of law has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that two separate assessments should be made for the two periods?'2. One of the partners of the firm Sri Ramesh Chandra Garg died on 27-2-1980. There was nothing in the partnership deed to the effect that the partnership will continue even after the death of a partner. Hence, in view of section 42 of the Partnership Act the firm stood dissolved and there have to be two assessments vide CIT v. Empire Estate : [1996]218ITR355(SC) .3. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Amit Beri and anr. Vs. Smt. Sheetal Beri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All78; 2003(1)AWC2
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. An application was moved by the appellants under Section 10 of Guardian and Wards Act read with the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the custody of the minor Master Vardan Beri who was admittedly born on 18.6.1996.2. Amit Beri appellant is the father and Hardaya Narain Beri, appellant No. 2 is grandfather of the minor and the respondent is his mother. The application for custody of the minor had been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Buland-shahr by Judgment and order dated 7.2.2002. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred.3. I have heard Shri R. B. Singhal and Shri B. K. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgments.4. It is admitted that the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent was a love marriage and the minor was born on 18.6.1996 at Bulandshahr. Archana Sharma, elder sister o...
Dilip Kumar Bajaj Vs. Pradeep Kumar Bajaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC247
B. K. Rathi, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1998 passed by District Judge, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1998 by which he granted permission to sell certain properties of the trust to the respondent. 2. The trust was made by late Jamuna Das regarding his properties. He constructed a temple of Dwarika Nathji also known as Dwarikadhish Ji in district Mirzapur, a dharmshala in Brindaban and other properties at Kanpur and Calcutta. The trust was created regarding all the above properties by registered Will dated 3.2.1914. According to the terms of the Will, Jamuna Das was to remain as trustee throughout his life, and thereafter, his only son Seth Rameshwar Das Bajaj became trustee. Seth Rameshwar Das Bajaj also died on 12.3.1937. Thereafter, his son. Dwarika Prasad Bajaj, the father of the parties became the trustee. Both parties are sons of Dwarika Prasad Bajaj. The respondent claimed that there was registered Will of Dwarika ...
Mazhar Alam Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC268; (2003)1UPLBEC340
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 18.3.1993 passed in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1991.2. 1 have heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jagannath Singh for the respondents.3. There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case which may briefly be narrated as follows.4. The appellant was working as 'Rakshak' in Railway Protection Force. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him and after completion of enquiry, he was removed from the service by Assistant Security Officer. The appellant preferred an appeal against that order before the Commandant, Railway Protection Force, which has also been dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order of removal dated 22.5.1985, as well as the order of appellate court dated 25.9.1986 are illegal and void and that he be treated in service and is also entitled to the salary and the other benefits...
Ravendra Singh Vs. Shrichand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC1
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 30.9.2002 and on that date, the execution of the sale deed was also stayed till further orders. The respondent-opposite parties have applied for vacation of the stay order. It is contended that a caveat was filed in this case but by mistake of the office, It was not reported. Therefore, the appeal was admitted and stay order was granted after hearing thecounsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent could not be heard. It is further contended that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale, which was decreed by the trial court, and the first appellate court has maintained the decree and there are two concurrent findings.2. I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. P. Goel, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondents.3. The first argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law, 'whether the plaintiffs were rea...
Narendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Sunil Kumar Chaurasia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC235
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The opposite party filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist. The dispute is regarding house No. 24-E, Bank Road, Katra, Allahabad. 2. In brief, it was alleged that the opposite party is the owner and the landlord of the house in which the revisionist was tenant and the rate of rent was Rs. 1,500 per month. The house was constructed in the year, 1975 and thereafter, it was given on rent and, therefore, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply ; that the rent was not paid since July, 1996 ; that the tenancy has been terminated by the registered notice dated 24.8.1998 which was served on 31.8.1998. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. The revisionist filed the written statement claiming ownership of the house. He denied the tenancy. 4. The trial court framed necessary issues. The opposite party absented and, therefore, the suit proceeded in his absence and was decreed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the opposite party. No evid...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »