Allahabad Court November 2003 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.
Digvijay NaraIn Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)132; [2004]266ITR417(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Department.2. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which permits the application under Section 256(1) to be filed within further period not exceeding 30 days than that prescribed in the main part of Section 256(1), i.e., 60 days. Thus the proviso permits the filing of a reference application within 90 days in appropriate cases.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be cases where the reference could not be filed even within 90 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Sections 249(3), 253(5) and other provisions of the Income-tax Act where there is no maximum period prescribed for condoning the delay by the authorities.4. Be that as it may, the proviso to Section 256(1) prescribes the maximum period of 30 days for which the period of limitation for filing a reference applicati...
Charan Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2408
ORDERK.N. Ojha, J. 1. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 30-10-1984 passed by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 80 of 1983, Smt. Shanti v. Charan Singh, by which the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 27-5-1983 passed by Vth Munsif Magistrate, Court No. 5, Muzaffar Nagar, in Criminal case No. 283/9 of 1983, Smt. Shanti v. Charan Singh, by which the learned Magistrate discharged the revisionist from charge under Section 376, I.P.C. police station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, after making inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. The order was passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved therefrom the prosecutrix Smt. Shanti Devi preferred the above mentioned revision, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to discharge an accused in a Sessions trial case.2. Heard Sri Siddhartha, learned counsel for the re...
Shilpa Knitwears and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC386(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated May 10, 1994 (annexure 9 to the petition), and for modification of the order dated September 7, 1992 (annexure 3 to the petition) in so far as it relates to the curtailment of the exemption under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 granted for five years (from March 30, 1990 to March 29, 1995). The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Level Committee, Kanpur, to grant exemption under Section 4-A for five years with effect from the date of the first sale, i.e., (March 30, 1990) and restraining the respondents from realising trade tax from the petitioner for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The petitioner established a new industrial unit for the manufacture of hosiery, vests, underwear and socks. Since it fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of exemption under Sectio...
Coco Foam Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC210; 2004(178)ELT93(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. The impugned order dated 29.11.1989, (Annexure-6) is an order passed by the Superintendent asking the petitioner to apply for a licence for compounded rubber and observe all central excise formalities and clear goods on payment of excise duty. The impugned order dated 1.3.1990 (which is Annexure 9 to the writ petition) asked the petitioner to submit certain information. The impugned order dated 19/20.2.1991 Annexure 11 to the writ petition, asked the petitioner to obtain a central excise licence and submit certain information. The order dated 9.4.1991 (Annexure 19 to the petition) again asked the petitioner to obtain a licence and file classification/price list. The notice dated 26/27.6.1991 again asked the petitioner to obtain licence and fulfil the formalities.3. All these orders can be chall...
St. Peter's College Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC492; [2004(101)FLR1010]; (2004)1UPLBEC448
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-employers by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the award dated 27th August, 1996, published on 27th November, 1996, passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Agra in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1988, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedfot; flag] iq= Jh usdjke] ekyh dks fnukad 9-6-83 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha]rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k YkkHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr **3. The labour court issued notices to the parties, namely, the workman concerned as well as the employers, who have put in appearance and filed their written statement and adduced the evidence. In short, the workman has set up the case that he was employed with the employers for past ten years as Class IV employee. Apart from other Clas...
Jayant Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Xth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC498
S.U. Khan, J.1. The suit in between landlord and tenant filed 31 years before, i.e., in the year 1972 is still pending. Landlords are also at fault for this undue delay in disposal as they are more interested in getting the defence of the tenant struck off than decision of the suit.2. Kamla Devi landlady since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 8 filed a suit being suit No. 194 of 1972 against tenant Anpurna Chakravorty since deceased and survived by petitioner and respondent Nos. 9 to 12. The suit was later on transferred to the Court of J.S.C.C., Varanasi and registered there as S.C.C. Suit No. 611 of 1975. Kamla Devi initially mortgaged the house in dispute to Anpurna Chakravorty in April or June, 1967, thereafter she let out the house to Anpurna Chakravorty in August, 1967 at the rate of Rs. 90 per month. According to plaint allegations the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.5.1971 to 31.3.1972, that on oral demand the tenant refused to pay the rent and gave a notice t...
Smt. Sharda Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC494
R.C. Deepak, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Sharda, widow of Yogendra Singh Bharti, daughter of Ratan Pal Singh, has filed this habeas corpus petition against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in particular with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against them (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) commanding and directing them to produce and hand over her son Chinoo (corpus) before the Court, mainly on the ground inter alia, that she and her husband Yogendra Singh Bharti could not live happily and peacefully due to bad behaviour and torture of the respondent No. 5 Smt. Ganeshwati, wife of respondent No. 5 Lekhram, who are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively, that her husband Yogendra Singh Bharti ultimately committed suicide/murder on 25.5.2003, that after receiving information regarding the suicide/ death of her husband she along with her father, child/son named above reached Amroha/J. P. Nagar from the house of her father where she was living with her son Chin...
Ambika Chaudhary and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC406
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioners, who were defendants in Suit No. 57 of 1973 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13th May, 1985, passed by the District Judge. Ballla, whereby the revision filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment and order dated 21st May, 1983, passed by the Civil Judge, Ballia.2. The facts in brief in the present controversy are that the aforesaid Suit No. 57 of 1973 was decreed ex pane on 10th November. 1976. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants on 23rd November. 1978 for setting aside the ex parte decree aforesaid, which was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 21st May. 1983 and the judgment and decree decreeing the suit ex parte dated 10th November, 1976 was recalled and the suit in question was restored to its original number. The respondents...
Asharfi Lal and anr. Vs. Vishwanath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC562
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings, initiated by Late Vishwa Nath, respondent No. 1, landlord, under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground of bona fide need of shop in dispute, registered as P.A. Case No. 37 of 1979. Prescribed Authority/City Munsif, Farrukhabad dismissed the release application by judgment and order dated 14,7.1981. Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 22 of the Act, being Rent Control Appeal No. 135 of 1981, was allowed by IInd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad, through Judgment and order dated 15.4.1982. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid Judgment of the lower appellate court.2. In the release application, it was stated that the landlord intended to start his business from the shop in dispute alongwith his grandson Krishna Kumar. Krishna Kumar is the son of Rajendra Prasad.3. During the pendency of writ petition, the landlord Vishwa Nath died on 26.10.199...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Sales (P.) Ltd., Moto ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)42; [2004]266ITR261(All)
M. Katju, J.1. These three income-tax references are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We treat I. T. R. No. 91 of 1981 as the leading case.3. In this case the questions of law referred to us for our opinion are as follows:'1. Whether there was material justifying the Tribunal's finding that there was a corresponding liability in respect of accretion in the contingency account No. II amounting to Rs. 43,095 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the accretion in the contingency account No. II could not be brought to tax as trading receipt in spite of the fact that the actual sales tax liability in respect of completed transactions had been duly provided for by transfer from the aforesaid accounts ?'4. The assessee is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act which does the business of hire-purchase of motor vehicles. It maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. When the assessee enters into an agreement w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »