Allahabad Court November 2014 Judgments
Ranjeet Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
Amar Saran and Vipin Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant and, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. We have perused the record and trial court judgement. This appeal arises out of a judgement of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dated 13.12.1982 in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 1982, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur convicting and sentencing the appellant Ranjeet to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 5 years under Section 394 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution version as disclosed in the F.I.R. was that when witnesses Shakil Ahmad, PW-1, Suleman, PW-2 and the deceased Abdul Rehman (uncle of informant) were returning from Saharanpur to their villages on their bicycles after selling milk at about 12.15 a.m. in the night on 20/21.04.1982 near the big canal, the three accused persons attacked them who were hiding under a peeple tree. One accused person came running from the northern side with a pistol...
Tag this Judgment!ITC Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
Vijay Prakash Pathak, J. Heard Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Nayar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vinod Kant, learned AGA and also learned standing counsel on behalf of the Central Excise Department and perused the record. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1790 of 1997 (Union of India through Shri R.N. Rustagi, Assistant Commissioner Vs. ITC Limited), alleging commission of offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, by which the matter has been fixed for remaining evidence of the complainant u/s 244 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that challenging the entire proceeding of complaint case No.1790 of 1997, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41435 of 2013, which has been finally...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Thur' Executive Engineer Vs. Raj Kumar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner (State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Aligarh Khand, Ganga Canal, District Aligarh) has challenged the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh-respondent No. 2, by which the claim of respondent No. 1 under Section 6-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred as "Act") had been allowed. 3. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition on 30.09.2013, had passed the following order in favour of the petitioner:- "Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application moved under section 6H(1) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act was not maintainable. The respondent workman was daily wager, hence the wages could not be calculated considering the salary of the regular employee...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
Om Prakash-VII, J. The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by one Bhagwan Swaroop challenging the order dated 13.5.2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in criminal revision no.377 of 1999 (Purushottam Vs. State and Others) whereby the Court below has declined to take additional evidence in criminal revision proceeding. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bah, Agra with the direction that the second party shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the first party in disputed property no.1478, 1479, 1480 and 1481. Copy of the order was also sent to the S.O. concerned for necessary action. The second party, feeling aggrieved with the order, filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Agra, being criminal revision no.377 of 1999 (Purushottam Vs. State and Others). During pendency of the revision, the opposite party ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalil Ahmad Ansari Vs. State Bank of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. Respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had taken loan from the respondent-State Bank of India for which the appellant was the guarantor. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed an order in the year 2001 for recovery of the defaulted amount from the principal debtors as well as the appellant (as guarantor). Execution proceedings were initiated before the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal in the year 2002. The matter has been pending since then. In the year 2009, on the basis of a compromise made by the principal debtors and the appellant as the guarantor, the auction scheduled to be held was postponed on the ground that the appellant as well as the principal debtors would deposit a sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs with the bank. In response thereto, the appellant is said to have deposited Rs. 2 lacs with the bank but the full amount was not deposited by the principal debtors or the appellant. Recovery proceedings continued and the appellant claimed that the amount sho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Vs. M/s. Star Steels and Others
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. The revenue is in appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28 March 2014. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside an order of the Adjudicating Authority by which an order of confiscation was passed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to a redemption fine and to a personal penalty that was imposed. The principal findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 20 November 2007 were two fold. Firstly, it was held that the stock which was found in the premises of the assessee was a few hundred tons and there was no actual measurement while determining as to whether there was an excess stock. The exercise appeared to have been carried out on the basis of a visual verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held as follows: "...Obviously stock as found with the appellants was few hundreds tons which would not have been weighed in 6 hrs time. Hence it is not known and clear...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2014
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appeal by the assessees arises from an order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The assessees in support of the appeal have raised the following questions of law: "1. Whether, in view of the fact that the appellants had never accepted the order of the Tribunal in respect of demand of pre-deposit of Rs.10 lacs and had agitated the matter upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have restored the appeals and decided the same on merits upon deposit of Rs.10 lacs made by the appellants on 23.1.2013 after dismissal of the SLP on 3.1.2013. 2. Whether, in absence of merger of the order of the Tribunal upon the dismissal of the SLP in limine by the Supreme Court on 3.1.2013, the Tribunal could have refused to exercise its jurisdiction to restore the appeal upon pre-deposit of Rs.10 lacs. 3. Whether, at any rate, the order dated 8.4.2013 results in complete miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the appellants have be...
Tag this Judgment!Brown and Sharpe Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Act arises from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2003-04 ITA No. 2015/Del/2008 which was rendered on 17 January 2014. The assessee is in appeal and has raised the following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the findings of the assessing officer that since the Liaison Office ('LO') was engaged in marketing/ promoting appellant's products in India, the appellant was liable to tax in India on business income; 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating that since activity of advertising/ marketing carried out by LO in India fell within the exclusion contained in Article 5(3) (e) of India-USA DTAA, the LO did not constitute PE of appellant in India and consequently no business profits were liable to tax in India as per Article 7 of that DTAA; 3....
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Office Vs. Leela ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
Facts in brief of the present case are that claimant, namely, Smt. Leela @ Vimal , Anil Kumar, Balram and Sunil Kumar filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) registered as Motor Accident Case No. 129 of 2001 (Smt. Leela and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others) inter alia stating therein that on 28.03.2001, Ishwardeen, the husband of Smt. Leela was travelling on a tractor having registration No. U.P. 41B 3073 for agriculture work driven by Sri Shiv Magan, owned by Sanjay Kumar Gupta, due to mechanical defect, the tractor had fallen in the 'Gadda', as a result of which the driver of the tractor has lost balance and Sri Ishwardeen has fallen from tractor, sustained injury, later on, on 29.03.2001 died at Medical College, Lucknow. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. while contesting the claim petition had filed a written statement inter alis taking a defence that there is a breach of of the terms of i...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
Ranjana Pandya, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 4000 of 2009, M/s Shdes-king Vs. Shoe-King and others, summoning the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before the court concerned under Section 138 Cr.P.C. The complainant filed his affidavit as evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., he submitted the original Cheque No.578556 amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- dated 27.5.2009, bank memo of P.N.B. by which the cheque was dishonoured, bank memo of his bank, namely, the South Indian Bank Ltd., carbon copy of the legal notice dated 20.6.2009, receipts of speed post and U.P.C., and the reply submitted by the revisionist. 3. The learned lower court, after perusal of all the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›