Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1432
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 25, 33, 35 of 1983 and 2947 of 1982.In all these petitions, the petitioners are the employees of Andhra Steel Corporation, and the respondent is the State represented by the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, R.P.F. Post, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.2. The common questions of law that arise in all these cases for consideration are:(1) When does a person against whom an enquiry is started for offences punishable under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, become an accused within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India ?(2) What is the scope of enquiry under Section 9 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and at what stage can a person take shelter under Article 20(3) during such an enquiry ?The necessary facts which give rise to this question are as follows :-In all these cases, the respondent, viz., the Inspector, Railway protection Force, R.P.F. Post, Marripalem Visakhapatnam, is the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1936]4ITR1(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is one Pandit Gopinath Naik of Bakhera Bazaar, District Basti. He submitted return under section 22(2) for the assessment year 1929-30. The return was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, who was empowered to act as an Income Tax Officer. He was assessed at an income of Rs. 1,00,450 including Rs. 1,00,000 as his income from money-lending businesses. He appealed to the Commissioner, who set aside lending business. He appealed to the Commissioner, who set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. The case was subsequently dealt with the by the Income-tax Officer, Basti, who issued a notice under Section 23(2) directing the assessee to produce his accounts for money-lending business. The accounts were produced, and it was discovered that there were serious omissions which created a strong suspicion that the accounts had been manipulated. An opportunity was given to the assessee to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All128
ORDERU.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioner whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer has filed the instant petition under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenging the election of 13th Lok Sabha from 20 LucknowParliamentary Constituency which was held in the year 1999 in which the respondent was declared elected.2. On 7th January, 2000 notice was issued by this Court to the respondent for filing written statement. On behalf of the respondent an application under Section 86 of the Act read with Order 6, Rule 16, Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved with a prayer that the present election petition be dismissed in limine as the petitioner has no right to file the petition under Section 81 of the Act. It was also stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was not a 'duly nominated candidate' as no affidavit was filed by him, as required, and as such he had no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.699
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majasty in Council from an order of a Bench of this Court suspending the applicant who is an enrolled Advocate, for a period of three months. A preliminary objection is taken by the Government Advocate that no leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council can be given by this Court. It is urged that the suspension of the Advocate is in the exercise of the power especially conferred upon this Court by Clause (8) of the Letters Patent and by the Bar Councils Act of 1926 and that when exercising such power the High Court is not exercising any jurisdiction, much less civil jurisdiction. It is, therefore, contended that Clause 30 of the Letters Patent would not at all apply and there would be no appeal to the Privy Council. It is further contended that the case not being a civil case to which Sections 109 and 110, Civil Procedure Code can apply, no leave can be granted under those sections.2. Reliance is placed on the view which has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1392
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. Since these two writ petitions arise out of the judgment and order dated 8-12-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Merrut in Special Case No. 14/11 of 2001, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance of the petitioner is that the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a draconian law with the aid of which and on the basis of a false and concocted report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut that the petitioner Badan Singh being a gangster acquired properties as a result of commission of several offences triable under the Act, the District Magistrate, Meerut attached the residential house as well as movable properties belonging to all the petitioners. Thereupon, on a reference being made, the learned Special Judge modified the order of the District Magistrate and released part of residential house and cash amounting to Rs.78,573/- from attach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All809
V. Bhargava, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise the same identical important question of interpretation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended up-to-date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently they were heard together and are being decided by one single judgment.2. The petitioners in both the petitions are the persons who presented election petitions to the Election Commission under Section 81 of the Act. In both cases, the petitioners were unsuccessful candidates at the last election for the U. P. Legislative Assembly and they presented election petitions impleading as respondents in those petitions the successful candidates. In each of the two constituencies, there was one other candidate who had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Act by a notice in writing to the Returning Officer. In the election petitions there were allegations of corrupt practices having been committed by the individuals who had w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. This revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') is directed against the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, whereby the application 36-B filed by the accused Rohit @ Abhishek Shukla for declaring him a juvenile in conflict with law was rejected. 2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 3. The facts are that revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid Sessions Trial. During the course of trial, an application 36-B was moved on behalf of accused Rohit @ Abhishek Shukla for declaring him a juvenile on the ground that his date of birth was 1.12.1986 and on the date of incident i.e. 26.6.2002, he was about 15 years of age. A copy of the Scholar Register and transfer certificate form issued by Sri Baba Shanker Giri Junior High School, village- Timrua and High School Mark-sheet of 2005 issued by Principa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1979All267; [1979]44STC84(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The dealer Sri Harbilas carried on business in the name and style M/s. Ram Dayal Harbilas and dealt in vegetable ghee and some other commodities. For the assessment year 1957-58 he filed quarterly returns showing his gross and net turnover as Rupees 19,17,223 and Rs. 7,16,936 respectively. However, the books filed by the dealer disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 19,08,223 which included the two amounts of Rs. 3,80,848 and Rs. 6,52,656 representing the turnover of vegetable oil purchased in Uttar Pradesh and that imported by the dealer from outside the State respectively. A scrutiny of the account books of the dealer further showed that he had, during the year, purchased vegetable oil worth Rupees 4,53,011 in Uttar Pradesh and had imported vegetable oil worth Rs. 6,39,978 from outside the State (bulk purchases being from Rohtak Industries Limited, Dalmianagar, Bihar). The dealer further filed a list of four traders namely Babu Mian Ibrahim, M/s. Bharat Trading Company, M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1970]25STC511(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, submitted by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow.2. The assessee runs a rice and dal mill at Kanpur. The assessee was assessed to Central sales tax in respect of the assessment year 1958-59, which is the year in dispute. There is no controversy about the turnover. The controversy relates to the rate of tax. It appears that the assessee had submitted 'C' forms in respect of sales amounting to Rs. 33,089.03, but did not submit 'C' forms with regard to the remaining turnover of inter-State sales. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the turnover covered by the 'C' forms at the concessional rate of one per cent, under Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the remaining turnover at the rate of 6 per cent, which was the rate with regard to such turnover at the material time. It appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All726
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a petition filed by Messrs Sugar Works, Limited, Baheri, Bareilly, who have claimed the following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution: (1) An order, direction or writ may kindly be issued quashing the notifications, dated 9-3-1954 and 29-3-1954; or an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of 'mandamus' be issued commanding the opposite parties not to enforce the said notifications. (2) An interim older, direction or writ in the nature of writ of 'mandamus' be issued, restraining the opposite-parties from taking action against the petitioner or its officers for non-compliance with the provisions of the said notifications or the allotment orders issued thereunder. (3) Such, other order, direction or writ as may be necessary in the ends of justice and in the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued. (4) The costs of the above writ petition be allowed to the petitioner. The opposite-parties to this petition are (1) the Union of India t...
Tag this Judgment!