Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 155Ind.Cas.369
1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess fireaims and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder, to commit dacoities and extortion which are offences under the Aims Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy: (a) a revolver and an automatic, pistol were stolen on February 19, 1931, and July 13, 1931, respectively; (6) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bhagat Dhyan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All162
Harris, J.1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess firearms and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder to commit decoities and extortion which are offences under the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy : (a) a revolver and an automatic pistol were stolen on 19th February 1931 and 13th July 1931, respectively; (b) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC8; 2005(189)ELT412(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 06.05.1999 and 12.11.2001 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was bringing 420 quintals garlic alleged to have been purchased in Nepal after storing them in re-usable sacks in India. When the said consignment was in transit, it was intercepted by the Custom authorities and was seized mainly on the ground that the garlic in question was of a Chinese origin. The inference that the said garlic was of a Chinese origin was drawn on the basis, (1) sack in which the garlic was stored contained Chinese description and trade information was received from petty trader at Gorakhpur that garlic are not grown at Nepal and secondly, Sri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya gave statement that garlic was of Chinese origin. In the adjudication proceeding. Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow vide its order dated 8th March, 1999 confiscat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All274; 1965CriLJ672
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant Sheo Ratan Upadhya filed a complaint against the respondents, Gopal Chandra Nepali, Manager Sarvahitalshi Company, a publishing house of Varanasi, and Mahadeo Prasad, the proprietor of Deepak Press of Varanasi, for an alleged infringement of the copyright of a work called 'Shri Mahabharat' in Nepali language which was written by the complainant's father, Pandit Narendra Nath Upadhya. The book was first published in 1929 through the Sarvahitalshi Company during tne life time of its author who died on 19th June 1950, The complainant, the eldest son of his father, does not seem to possess personal knowledge about the publication or sale of the book and states in his complaint that he was busy with his studies until recently when he took up the management of the affairs of the family. The complainant alleges that his father had told him that he had never sold the copyright of the abovementloned work, which is mere hearsay and an admission in his own favour.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All109; 121Ind.Cas.701
1. The property is dispute originally belonged to Molai who in 1881 put his wife Mt. Nepali in possession and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It has been assumed all along that by adverse possession Mt. Nepali acquired an absolute proprietary interest in this property. The property therefore became her stridhan. In 1890 long after the death of her husband she attempted to make a gift of this property in favour of her daughter Mt. Lakhpati and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It is admitted that Mt. Lakhpati continued in adverse possession of this property from 1890 to 1899 when Mt. Nepali died. On the death of Mt. Nepali, her daughter Mt. Lakhpati was her sole heir. She continued in possession of this property as before till her death in 1920. Mt. Nepali had not executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Mt. Lakhpati as required by law.2. The plaintiff is an heir of Mt. Lakhpati's husband and claims the property on the ground that it was the stridhan of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Ramjan against the judgement and order dated 13.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. No. 1, Siddhartha Nagar convicting the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) ( C ) of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00000/- (One Lac Only) and in default of payment of fine further R. I. of two years. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 7.11.2008 Sub-Inspector, Imanwal Singh received information from Mukhbir Khas that one person was brining Nepali Charas from Krishna Nagar Bazar, Nepal to Barhni Bazar, India, whereupon Sub-Inspector, Imanwal Singh along with Lans Nayak No. 8657229 Hardev Singh and No. 050333501 Guard Sunil Kumar, B. Company Barhni Headquarter, Gorakhpur reached Barhni Bazar where 8847378 Nayak Mahesh Prabhar and 070091511 Guard Ashok Ghosh were already on duty in Lane No. 2 Barhni Bazar. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All533
ORDERKidwai, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Changur who ha3 been convicted under Section 60, Clause (a) of Excise Act for being in possession of two seers of contraband Nepali Ganja. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He appealed but the learned Sessions Judge of Gonda upheld the conviction and the sentence. The applicant has come up in revision. It is contended on his behalf that his conviction is bad for the following reasons: (1) that he was arrested not by an Excise Officer but by the villagers belonging to the village defence party and consequently the arrest was illegal; (2) that no report of the Chemical Examiner was produced to show that the Ganja recovered was Nepali contraband Ganja; and (3) that the prosecution was initiated by a Sub-Inspector of Police and not by an Excise Officer and consequently the applicant could not be convicted under Section 60 (a), Excise Act. 2. It appears that on the night between the 3rd and 4th S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)11VST303(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. These revisions are at the instance of Commissioner of Trade Tax in respect of the same assessee involving similar question of law and fact for the assessment year's 1986-87 and 1987-88. The opposite party deals in kirana spices, oil-seed and dry fruits, etc. In the assessment year 1986-87 the dealer-opposite party claimed exemption from payment of tax on the sale of spices and haldi of Rs. 2,90,079.50 on the basis of export to Nepal. Similarly it claimed exemption from payment of tax for the subsequent assessment year on sale of haldi worth Rs. 2,24,579 on the basis of export to Nepal. The assessing authority accepted the books of account of the dealer but rejected the claim of exemption in respect of the aforesaid turnover. However, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal allowed the claim of the dealer-opposite party. Challenging the orders of the Tribunal present revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under Section 11 of the U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1985All10
M. Wahajuddin, J. 1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' suit was for injunction and in the alternative in case the Court held that the plaintiffs are not in possession, for delivery of possession as such.2. The plaintiffs' stand was that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the disputed plot and the trees standing thereon and the mutation is wrong and the land was wrongly recorded as Banjar. The defendants' case was that their ancestors had planted the trees and they were owner in possession of plot No. 49 (area 19 decimals) having trees on the same and the trees were also planted by them and further that as a matter of precaution they secured a settlement of the plot from the Gaon Sabha after the abolition of zamindari.3. The trial Court framed a number of issues. It found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court also took similar view and dismissed the appeal. The findings are assailed in the second appeal.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)208CTR(All)390; [2007]289ITR203(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty proceedings Under Section 273(b) cannot be initiated in reassessment proceedings?2. The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1972-73 in respect of the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 273(1)(b) of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follow:The respondent assessee was intercepted on 1.6.1971 by the Police with 2240 Kgs. smuggled ganja valued at Rs. 6,72,000/-. As no return was filed by him, the Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings underSection 147(a)...
Tag this Judgment!