Allahabad Court July 1988 Judgments
Braham Singh Vs. Iv Additional District Judge, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All301
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in suit No. 533 of 1975 filed in the court of Judge Small Causes, Meerut, Harvinder Singh Duggal v, Brahm Singh.2. The property in dispute is house No. 165, now number, 290/291 and recently numbered as 31, Shivlok, Kankherkhera, Meerut. The petitioner is the tenant, Harvinder Singh Duggal, respondent 3 is the landlord. The suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem was filed by the respondent 3 against the petitioner. The case set up in the plaint was that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. He defaulted in the payment of rent since J-4-1974. He has consequently served with a notice of demand and ejectment dt. 18th Dec. 1974, which was served upon him on 2612-1974. In spite of the service of notice of demand, the petitioner did not comply with the said notice and hence the suit was filed for the relie...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Transport Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: [1991]189ITR326(All); [1992]63TAXMAN246(All)
S.C. Mathur, J. 1. An income-tax assessee whose assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 was completed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Central Circle-I, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said assessment on the ground that the officer lacked jurisdiction to make the assessment. In the description of respondent No. 1, the word 'assistant' appears to have been wrongly used in place of 'assessment' as from annexure-3 which is the impugned order, it appears that his correct designation is Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Central Circle I, Lucknow. The assessment was made on March 30, 1988. The petitioner admits that, against the impugned order, he has preferred an appeal under Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (for short 'the Act'), but hejustifies the filing of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!Duggal Bricks Supply Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC343(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This sales tax revision is directed against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur. By the impugned order, the Sales Tax Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, setting aside the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81, passed against the assessee, to be made de novo by the Sales Tax Officer.2. It was argued on behalf of the assessee, that the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) are erroneous in law and on facts, as no case for setting aside the assessment was made out.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find, there is no substance in the above contention.4. The power of the appellate authority to set aside an assessment is not in dispute. The (question for consideration is, whether on facts of the instant case, the exercise of that power by the appellate authority was valid in law.5. The dispute relate...
Tag this Judgment!Verma Industries Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC22(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari calling for the record of the case and for quashing notices contained in annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition by which sales tax demands for the years 1983-84 and 1985-86 have been made from the petitioner.2. The sole grievance raised in this writ petition is that the sales tax authorities are trying to recover the impugned demands without deciding the review application moved by the petitioner for getting his application decided under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier in this Court which had been finally disposed of and the Divisional Level Committee was directed to dispose of the review application at an early date. It appears that the aforesaid review application has not been disposed of by the Divisional Level Committee up-till now. It is expected that the Divisional Level Committee will now ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ullah Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR265]; (1990)ILLJ109All
U.C. Srivastava, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the award given by the Labour Court, Lucknow holding that the termination of service of the petitioner was illegal and void ab-initio but directing that the petitioner shall be given a compensation of Rs. 7,500 in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that he lacked qualification for the post and did not succeed in the qualifying examination.2. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage workman at the Firozgandhi Uonchahar Thermal Power Project, Rae Bareli, on a daily wage at Rs. 17 with effect from 24th June 1982. In the year 1983 a written test for absorbing those persons in regular service was taken by the Board and the petitioner appeared in the same. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear in the third paper which was also held on the same day. According to the petitioner, he was not allowed to appear in typing test and was told that there was no time and as such examination would be held subsequently. According to the oppo...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Mahipat Rai Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC306
A.N. Varma, J.1. The instant application Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal to this Court.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that one Dr. Lajpat Rai Verma aged about 50 years was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Pauri. In connection with an official tour he undertook a journey from Pauri to Kotdwara on 28-12-83 by Jeep No. UTS-6612. The jeep belonged to U.P. State Health Services and was driven by the official driver Mahendra Singh. The wife of Dr. Lajpat Rai Verma was accompanying him. At about 8.45 p.m. at a distance of about 1 km. ahead of Paldul the jeep had an accident and fell into a Khud killing on the spot the wife of Dr. Lajpat Rai Verma as well as the driver. Dr. Lajpat Rai Verma while on way to hospital succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.3. At the time of his death Dr. Lajpat Rai Verma was drawing Rs. 3430/- as salary besides other emoluments. Dr. Verma was to attain the age of superann...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Digamber Parshad Kirti Pars ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All299
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The present application in revision has been filed as against an order dt. 14-6- 1988 passed by the learned 4th Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, by virtue of which application for deciding the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue has been rejected.2. The contention of the applicant is that under Section 21, C.P.C. the objection as to jurisdiction having been raised at the initial stage the Court committed an error in rejecting the said application. It was further contended that the decision suffers from illegality insofar as it holds to the contrary while referring to the case Sausa Musa Sugar Works v. Chunnilal Choraria, AIR 1975 Gauhati 34. In that case the Court did not record finding that the case cannot be decided subsequent to the date of filing the written statement. It was further contended that the Court's view that while weighing the fact evidence shall have to be led twice was not a proper approach and in doing so it fell into error and thus i...
Tag this Judgment!Gaitri Devi Vs. Commissioner, Varanasi Division and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR389(All)
R.R. Misra, J. 1. A certificate for recovery of estate duty to the extent of Rs. 8,68,725 was received by the Collector, Varanasi, against the petitioner, Smt. Gaitri Devi, who is the owner of a house situate in Mohalla Habibpura-Chetganj, Varanasi. The said property was put to auction by the authorities concerned. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy arising in these two, writ petitions are not in dispute. In pursuance of the aforesaid recovery proceedings, an auction sale had actually taken place on February 4, 1986. The highest bidder at the auction was one Sri Shiv Kumar, who, on demand, failed to deposit one-fourth of the amount of the bid. Consequently, Sri Sharad Jaiswal, who was the second highest bidder at the said auction, was required to deposit one-fourth of the amount of auction. On that very date, Sri Jaiswal deposited one-fourth of the amount of auction sale. Subsequently, objections were filed by Smt. Gaitri Devi before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate statin...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All303
ORDERA.P. Misra, J. 1. This revision is directed as against an order dt. 9-2-1988 by virtue of which application for making additional issue so far as it relates to Issues Nos, 10 and 11 was rejected. Issues Nos. 10 and 11 in terms raise question of title and they are quoted as under:--'10. Whether no valid title passed in the plaintiffs through the sale deed dt. 9-8-1983 relied upon by the plaintiff? If so, its effect. 11. Whether the sale deed dt. 9-8-1983 is understamped and unenforceable and inadmissible in evidence?' 2. In the present revision notice was issued at the admission stage. Since parties are represented and counter and rejoinder affidavits having been exchanged this revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.3. The main contention on behalf of the applicant was that the trial court should not have rejected the said two issues since the question regarding transfer of title by the erstwhile landlord to the transferee by means of sale deed dt. 9th ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Palika Vs. Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ116All
R.S. Dhavan, J. 1. The only question in the present writ petition is of the liability to pay interest to the retired employees, the respondents, on the gratuity which is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. There is no issue, in reference to the context that the respondents received the gratuity due to them, beyond the prescribed time. The employees have claimed interest in accordance with Section 8 of the Act aforesaid. Thus, whether interest is payable is an issue raised in the writ petition. 2. The three employees are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These are Messrs Mithualal, Din Dayal Mittal and Girja Prasad. Mithualal retired as a Sweeper (Safai Karmchari), Din Dayal Mittal retired as an Accounts Clerk and Girja Prasad retired as a Tax Superintendent. All were employed in the Nagar Palika, Khurja, the petitioner. As the issues arc common this Court will take up the matter of Mithualal. 3. The said respondent retired on February 28, 1981. He was paid the gratuit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »