Allahabad Court May 2004 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.
Baikunth Nath Das (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Vii Additional District Judge an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All382; 2004(3)AWC2626
ORDERAshok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Shri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for he petitioner.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of writ of 'certiorari' quashing the order dated 9-4-1984 passed by learned, Munsif, Gorakhpur rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure and order dated 25-3-1985 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge dismissing the revision filed by the' petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a suit No. 444 of 1931 was filed by two plaintiffs namely Hari Prasad and Devi Prasad against two defendants namely Baba Swarup Das and Harnam Singh for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the disputed constructions and damages. The said suit was ultimately decided in terms of the compromise on 21-12-1931. Compromise provided that disputed constructions made by the defendants would not be demolished but the said defendants were restrained from making any further constructions towards east of the land EF...
Anant Ram JaIn Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3009
Tarun Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of a building situate at Kotana Road in the town of Baraut, district Meerut. The respondent No. 3 is the tenant of a shop situate on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 208.33p. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1' (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop showing the need for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The petitioner alleged that his third son was a student of B.A. and was not good in studies and had failed in his B.A. examination and that he did not wish to study any further and therefore, wanted to start a business of shoes and chappals. The landlord contended that apart from the building in question, he had no other premises where he could set up the business for his son and therefore, he required the shop to set up the business for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The tenant respondent No. 3 contested the release application and denied that the need of the landlord, to se...
Electro Homoeopathic Practitioners Association of India and anr. Vs. A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3148
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 29.4.2004.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : (2000) 5 SCC 80, it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that unqualified and unregistered persons are carrying on medical profession in the State of U. P. The Supreme Court was distressed to note that inspite of the direction to the U. P. Government to check this malpractice the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers in the State had not taken effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. The Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of the unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates but no follow up action was taken. It was also noted that after being warned the unqualified/unregistered Doctors have shifted to neighbouring districts. The Supreme Court issued several directions in para 6 of the s...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All75; 2004(4)AWC3756; II(2005)BC15
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava and Sri DeoraJ, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24th April, 1985 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor by which Appeal Nos. 22 of 1983 and 152 of 1984 filed by Bharat Singh, respondent No. 1, have been allowed.3- Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are ; in pursuance of a money decree properties of Judgment- debtor were sold oil 20th August, 1982 in which the petitioner was the auction purchaser. An application was filed by respondent No. 1, Judgment debtor, against the action under Order XXI Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the application it was stated that auction proceedings are illegal and fabricated and the provisions of Order XXI Rule 68 of Code of Civil Procedure have not been followed. It was stated that auction purchaser is son-in-law of decree holder and no permission of th...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ339
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. Accused Ram Kumar son of Lakhan a resident of village Agandi P.S. Dataganj, District Budaun has filed this appeal against the judgment and order-dated 14-3-2000 passed by Sri Hakim Ali Khan, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun whereby he was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one Lac and in default, he was ordered to undergo additional imprisonment for a term of one year.2. In brief, the prosecution case is as under.-A complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun by Gauri Shanker, Inspector/Investigating Officer, Central Narcotic Bureau, Bareilly on 8-8-1997. It was urged in the complaint that a secret information was received that accused had concealed opium in his house which could be recovered. After recording this intimation, an authorization ...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Jyoti Glass Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]140STC398(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is at the instance of Commissioner of Trade Tax against the order dated July 5, 1995 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 418 of 1994 for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The opposite party is manufacturer and seller of hand-made glass phials/bottles. The account books of the dealer were rejected by the assessing authority. The dealer-opposite party has purchased the old broken glass pieces for the manufacture of hand-made glass phials. The assessing authority has levied tax on such purchases under Section 3-AAAA of the Act. The Tribunal has set it aside by the order under revision. In the revision following two questions have been framed :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances as stated above, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to reduce the taxable turnover of the dealer, despite the fact that incriminating evidences on record indicate otherwise?(2) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to set aside the tax...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Rana Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC452(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is at the instance of Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order dated May 16, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1994 for the assessment year 1991-92. The Tribunal by the impugned order has set aside the penalty proceeding under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The dealer-opposite party carried on the business of manu facture and sale of M.S. angles and bars, etc. It has obtained regis tration for the assessment year 1991-92 under Section 7(2) of the Act. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceeding under Section 10A of the Act on the ground of misuse of form C. The case of the depart ment is that the dealer purchased 'electronic weigh bridge' with P.C. computer system with keyboard and monitor by unauthorisedly issuing forms C Nos. 309775 and 379774. The dealer was not authorised to purchase these two item...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sadhana Press
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC153(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These nine revisions are at the instance of Commissioner of Sales Tax and relate to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1989-90. All these revisions arise out of common order dated July 17, 1993. Identical questions of law and fact are involved in these revisions. The learned Counsel for both the parties made submissions with reference to the facts given in Sales Tax Revision No. 1728 of 1993 and submitted that the facts are similar in other sales tax revisions also. In view of this the necessary facts which emerge from the Sales Tax Revision No. 1728 of 1993 are being noticed herein in brief.2. The factual scenario is almost undisputed. The opposite- party deals in paper, etc., and printing on job-work. It is a registered dealer Under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. A copy of the registration certificate has been filed as annexure 7. The dealer-opposite party has been authorised to purchase tissue paper, craft paper and printing ink for resa...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Ashok Grah Udyog Kendra (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2007)8VST716(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the 1 Tribunal passed in second appeal Nos. 961 of 1985 and 453 of 1985 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. In the memo of revision the following question of law have been framed:Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that ground masala obtained from sabut masala are one and the same commodity and no manufacturing process is involved therein despite the fact that the honourable High Court of Allahabad has held otherwise in the case of Kaderul Sehat Dawakkana [1984] 56 STC 133 : [1984] UPTC 224?3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. None appeared for the dealer-opposite party.4. The dealer-opposite party deals in spices and condiments. These are locally purchased tax-paid goods. The appellant grinds spices and condiments and in some cases it mixes them together and sells them accordingly for the last several years. For the assessment year in question the departme...
C.S.T. Vs. Suraj Rubber Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST480(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated March 12, 1992 passed in Second Appeal No. 278 of 1991 for the assessment year 1985-86.The opposite party is a manufacturer and seller of cycle and cycle rick-shaw tyres and tubes. It is registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and has also obtained recognition certificate under Section 4B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The present revision arises out of penalty proceeding under Section 4B of the Act on the ground that besides manufacturing cycle tubes it has manufactured and sold super heavy duty rickshaw tubes for which, the dealer was not authorised under Section 4B of the Act. Thus, the dealer has violated Section 4B of the Act. In reply to the penalty notice the dealer-opposite party has placed reliance upon a notification No. S.T.-II-7551/X dated December 31, 1976, issued under Section 4B of the Act. In annexure III of the said notification, the notified goods ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »