Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-19-1988
Reported in : AIR1989All1
S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether a defence of a tenant can be struck off for non-compliance of Rule 5 of Order XV as added by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, (U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). Hon. B. N. Sapru, J. by his order dated 29th April, 1987 when the revision came up for hearing before him, directed that the papers of the case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to consider the following questions : --1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ganpat Giri v. II Addl. District Judge, AIR 1986 SC 589 the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the C.P. C. stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the Central Act? 2. Whether the Central Amendments having come into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977 repealed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-13-1988
Reported in : AIR1988All305
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. This is tenant's second appeal, Courts below having rendered non-concurrent judgments. At the stage of admission itself parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and it was urged that since the only question involved in the appeal was about the validity of the notice the same may be disposed of at this very stage. In view of this the parties were heard on merits as well.2. To have a hang of the dispute between the parties it will be better to comprehend the relevant facts. The plaintiff claiming to be the owner of an open piece of land claimed that the defendant was his tenant. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served whereupon the suit was filed for his eviction. The suit was resisted by the tenant on several grounds but the main ground was that the defendant was continuing as tenant from the time of the plaintiffs father. It was also contended that Keshav Dev and Jagannath were the real owners of the property and since all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-25-1988
Reported in : [1989]176ITR462(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitition has been filed by Bharat Traders, a partnership firm, having its head office at Kanpur and four others for quashing of the Notification No. 84-Bha. Sa(2)/VII. A. N. 225-79 dated Lucknow, September 16, 1982, issued in exercise of the powers under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The notification is as under :'In exercise of the powers under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), the Governor, after consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is pleased to establish with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, a special court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for all districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Allahabad, to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule below in any local area within the State of Uttar Prades...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-25-1988
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1117
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Bharat Traders, a partnership firm, having its head office at Kanpur and 4 others for quashing of the notification No. 84Bha Sa(2)/VII A.N. 225-79 dated Lucknow, Sept. 16, 1982, issued in exercise of powers under provision to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The notification is as under:In exercise of the powers under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (Act II of 1974), the Governor, after consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is pleased to establish with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Gazette, a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class for all districts of Uttar Pradesh with its place of sitting at Allahabad, to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule below in any local area within the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. The Schedule below the notification mentions 12 A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1988
Reported in : [1989]72STC62(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been preferred against the order dated July 31, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, relating to assessment year 1973-74 (U.P. and Central). Since both the revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the instant revisions are that the assessee is a manufacturer of vanaspati ghee and soap, etc., carrying on its business at Ghaziabad. During the assessment year in question the assessee disclosed its taxable sales in U.P. at Rs. 5,10,23,821.27 and in Central at Rs. 20,90,377.85. The account books of the assessee were rejected by the assessing authority and its taxable turnover in U.P. was determined at Rs. 5,72,23,821.77 and in Central at Rs. 53,26,865.06. The assessee feeling aggrieved, filed appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who ...
Tag this Judgment!