Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3679
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. List is revised. No one is present for the applicant. Learned A.G.A. appears for the State.2. The applicant Rajdhar has filed this application invoking inherent powers for quashing the order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 33 of 1993 under Section 302 I.P.C. The First Information Report was registered on 24.5.1991 at 7:40 a.m. against the five accused namely Rajdhar s/o Vijyanand, Premika s/o Vijyanand, Vishnu Dayal s/o Raghuman, Hemraj s/o Mahesh and Dhanpat, s/o Raghuman, According to the narration of the F.I.R., the husband of the complainant Malkhan @ Bulbul was done to death in the middle of intervening night 23-24.5.1991. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against three accused Lavelesh s/o Khuraki, Dafola @ Raja Bhai and Mohan s/o Mahesh Chaubey, all of them were not named in the F.I.R. The Session Trial commenced against the said three accused under Sections 302, 120 I.P.C. Smt. Chan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4191
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Daya Shanker Mishra Advocate for the applicants, Sri Raj Kumar Khanna Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Jai Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This application has been filed on behalf of the accused challenging the orders dated 6.10.2004, 1.11.2004 and 6.1.2005 in case Crime No. 1156 of 2004, Police Station Amroha, under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C. State v. Guman Ahmad alias Manna and Anr. The orders challenged in this application are in respect of the proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. The applicants are the accused in a murder case. Initially the case was registered under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C. Later the injured died and the case was converted under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was registered on 13.10.2004 but the applicants have not surrendered till date. The order dated 16.10.2004 which is Annexure-1 to the affidavit, is an order issuing non-bailable warrants on an applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3436
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, arguments on behalf of petitioner and the contesting respondent was advanced.3. The petitioner, Shami Ullah Khan has filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding in Civil Revision No. 27 of 2001, and the orders dated 31.8.2001, 4.10.2004 passed by the Revisional Court/District Judge Mahrajganj, annexed as annexures 9 and 14 to the writ petition.4. The petitioner claims his right through Smt. Ran Rati widow of Ganesar (Lal Chand) viz. a viz. contesting respondent No. 1 Dhruv Narain. Pedigree of Ganesar has been detailed in para 4 of the writ petition. The pedigree is given below5. Brij Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(All)69; [2006]282ITR236(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the for the assessment year 1986-87 for the opinion of this Court:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding the cash credit in the income of the assessee when persons in whose names the cash credit, had declared the same under amnesty scheme and had also been assessed as such on the respective amount credited in the account, despite the fact that those persons were closely related to the partners of the assessee firm?'2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The applicant assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') was a partnership firm consisting of two partners, Sri Prayag Narain Gupta and his son Pramod Kumar Gupta having equal shares. Assessee derived its income from manufacturing and sale of rice and rice bran and also from purchase and sale of food grains, pulses and oil seed. In the course of scrutiny of the account assessing authority found the following cash credit entries during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(All)645; [2006]282ITR431(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the assessment year 1981-82 for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) specially when the revised return was filed after the search operation when loose papers recovered indicated unrecorded transactions and unrecorded unexplained investment?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The assessee opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') was a partnership Firm and was carrying on the business of purchase and sales o f cloths and was also carrying on the business of money lending. Assessee filed return of income on 27.7.1981 showing loss of Rs. 3.660/- and thereafter. a search was conducted at the business premises on 23.9.1981 and also residential premises of the partner of the Firm under Section 132 and during the course...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)590
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as Act') for the assessment year 1989-90 for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to grant of depreciation at the rate of 100% on the cost of high efficiency boiler installed and used in the assessee's factory.?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The assessee/opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is Cooperative Society and runs a Sugar Factory as well as a Distillery Unit. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation on a high efficiency boiler installed and used in the year relevant to the assessment year The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had used bagasse as fuel instead of coal and the boiler did not have an efficiency of 75...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]282ITR510(All)
R.K. Agrawal and Rajes Kumar, JJ.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act) relating to the assessment yea; 1972-73 for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the CIT(A) 's finding that the penalty order under Section 271(10(c) 'had been passed after the expiry of the limitation period stipulated under Section of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') for the assessment year 1971-72 filed two returns of income one for the period 01.04.1971 to 30.06.1971 disclosing the income of Rs. 34,510/- and the another return for the period 01.04 1971 to 31.03.172 disclosing the income of Rs. 1,76,172. The Income Tax Officer complete one assessment in respect of both the periods at Rs. 9,15,710/- vide order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3122
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Sripat and Sri Rajul Bhargava, advocates appearing for the revisionist Smt. Indra Sharma in Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005. Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Madhav Jain, advocate appearing for the plaintiff respondents. Sri Murlidhar, senior advocate, assisted by Sri R. P. Singh, advocate appearing for the M/s. Guruji Motors Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Revision No. 84 of 2005 and one of the respondent in Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005.2. The Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005 is filed by Smt. Indra Sharma and Civil Revision No. 84 of 2005 is on behalf of M/s. Guruji Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others. Two revisions are consolidated. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Record of the lower court was summoned by a special messenger, which is also placed before me. The record is available as such I proceed to decide these revisions finally.3. Both the revisions have been filed challenging the ex par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3867J
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, advocate, assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, advocate, counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is defendant's appeal. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit No. 439 of 1982 against the appellant for a relief of possession over the house shown by figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 in the plaint. By way of amendment, relief of damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from 15.9.1982 till the date of possession was also claimed. The appellant filed his written statement on 9.3.1987 disputing each and every allegations in the plaint. The Munsif West, Ballia vide judgment dated 10.8.1994 decreed the plaintiffs suit for relief of possession but dismissed the claim of damages. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1994 and plaintiffs filed his cross-objection. The Additional District Judge, Ballia vide judgment dated 26.11.2001 dismissed the appeal and cross-objections.3. The dispute i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)DMC255
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.1.1985 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 1985, Smt. Shakina Begum v. Saghir Ahmad, whereby the revision was allowed and the revisionist husband, Saghir Ahmad was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to Smt. Shakina Begum at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to her daughter. By the impugned order dated 21.1.1985 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision by setting aside the order dated 18.12.1984 whereby the learned 3rd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, dismissed the Case bearing No. 79 of 1984, Smt. Shakina Begum v. Saghir Ahmad, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. police station Neoria, district Pilibhit.2. Heard Sri Roshan Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent end have gone through the record.3. The fact of the case as revealed from the r...
Tag this Judgment!