Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1996)IIILLJ767All
1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 12217/ 83. The respondent was admittedly a suspended employee of Mirzapur Electricity Supply Company. (for short 'Company') against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. On September 1, 1975, under Section 4(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for short the Act, the licence of the Company was revoked under a memorandum of understanding and an agreement reached with the appellant. One of the terms thereof was that the appellant will not take any employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. The appellant took over the Company. Eight years thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition placing reliance on Section 6A of the Act as amended by an U.P. Act and contended that the respondent was entitled to be taken into service, but was unlawfully prevented from discharging his duties. The High Court accepted the contention and issued the mandamus as prayed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All38; (1994)3UPLBEC1592
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. The dispute raised in these six Special Appeals is inter-connected and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order after hearing learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.2. Writ Petition No. 19516 of 1991 has been filed by (1) Committee of Management A. V. Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) Shamsabad district, Farrukhabad through its Manager Mohd. Fazil Khan and (2) Mohd. Fazil Khan against (1) District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the DIGS), Farrukhabad and(2) Abdul Aziz Khan praying that the attestation of signature of respondent No. 2 made by the respondent No. 1 on 5-7-1991 may be quashed and the- respondents may be restrained from interfering with the functioning of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as the Committee of Management and Manager respectively of the Institution. The writ petition was allowed by learned single Judge on 24-9-1993 and the order dated 5-7-1991 was quashed and it was further ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All371
ORDER1. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), respondent No. 2 raising a demand of Rs. 70,000/-towards the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty thereon on a re-determination of the correctness of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the sale deed in respect of the vacant land executed in favour of the petitioner which re-determination took place in the proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of U.P.2. Along with the aforesaid revision the petitioner filed an application for interim relief praying that during the pendency of the revision, recovery of the amount in dispute be stayed. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 3-2-1994, while admitting the revision for hearing, granted an interim order of stay whereunder the recovery proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All359
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. These writ petitions revolving around one and the same controversy viz. challenging the validity of the two sets of notifications published one after another under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the same land, amply demonstrate that tenure-holders of land sought to be acquired under the Act, for howsoever laudable and urgent purpose, zealously guard their right to land, no more constitutional but legal only, leaving no stone unturned in thwarting the acquisition proceedings and thereby giving rise to hunderd per cent litigation. It is for the legislature to devise such a method with the legal framework for making acqusition lesser painful and disadvantageous as to please the tenure-holders to readily part with their land for the purposes, conducive to the growth and development of the nation without creating legal hurdles. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Samiti for brevity sake) has been struggling hard righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All403
ORDER1. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 14-12-1993 passed by the 10th Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, and further for quashing the proceedings of Election Petition No. I of 1992 (Mohammad Khalid Qurreshi v. Raj Kumar Shukla and others).2. According to the petitioner the election of Members of Cantonment Board, Lucknow were held in 1991-92. The election schedule was as under:--Date of nomination 30-12-1991.Date of scrutiny 2-1-1992.Date of withdrawal of 3-1-1992.nomination.Date of polling 2-2-1992.Date of declaration of 3-2-1992.results.The petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 8, besides Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla and Sri D.P. Gupta, filed their nomination papers for election of the Cantonment Board for Ward No. 4. The nomination paper of Sri D. P. Gupta was rejected in the scrutiny and the nonination papers of others were found to be in order. Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla later on with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1994]210ITR478(All); [1994]75TAXMAN232(All)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), praying therein that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the questions of law as mentioned in paragraph 3 of this application to this court for decision therein.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on August 26, 1987, a search under Section 132(1) of the 1961 Act by the concerned income-tax authorities was conducted on the business and residential premises belonging to Shri Subhash Kumar and Shri Tagore Kumar, both sons of the late Sri Laxmi Prasad. While the Department was proceeding against these two aforesaid persons under Section 132(5) of the Act, some of the unexplained assets and documents were claimed as belonging to an association of persons styled as Messrs, Laxmi Prasad and Sons. They stated that their father, late Laxmi Prasad, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1994]208ITR843(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the Revenue.2. In view of the exchange of affidavits and in accordance with the rules of the court, these petitions are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.3. The aforesaid four petitions raised a common question relating to search and seizure made on January 23/24, 1992.4. The petitioners seek mandamus directing the respondents to return/ release the books of account, records, papers and documents seized from the petitioners during the search and seizure operations on the aforesaid dates. The short facts are that the office premises of the petitioners were searched on January 23/24, 1992, by the Income-tax Officers under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961/Section 37A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. According to the petitioners, the said seizure is made indiscriminately and large number of documents were seized, which include the original documents' of title, power of attor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All81; (1994)2UPLBEC1216
ORDER1. The petitioner appeared at High School examination 1991. His result was withheld. He was, however, given a provisional mark-sheet in which he was shown to have secured 346 marks out of 600.2. The petitioner received a show cause notice to appear before the EnquiryCommittee. The charge against the petitionerwas that he did not show calculation work toanswer question No. 8(Kha) of Mathematics1st Paper but the answer was correct whichindicates that he used unfair means. Thepetitioner denied the charge. The Boardcancelled the result of the petitioner by orderdt. 9th Feb. 1993, a copy of which has beenannexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.The petitioner has filed this writ petition inthis Court against the order. 3. On behalf of the respondent a counter affidavit has been filed. This Court summoned the record. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the answer book of the petitioner in Mathematics 1st Paper. The petitioner was aliotted Roll No. 1404940. The charge-sheet, which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)121CTR(All)77; [1994]208ITR461(All); [1994]75TAXMAN107(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an important question whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) possesses power to grant stay against recovery of tax.2. Whereas the petitioner's returned income was Rs. 12,840 and Rs. 16,430 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92, he was assessed in the status of an individual at Rs. 12,97,130 and Rs. 26,18,190, respectively. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur, for both the years, which are said to be still pending.3. The petitioner approached the assessing authority to get the stay order, then the assessing authority stayed the demand till November 30, 1993, or till the disposal of appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), whichever was earlier. The stay order stood terminated on November 30, 1993, as the appeals could not be decided till then. Thereafter, the petitioner went up to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1995CriLJ554
K. Narayan, J.1. Accused appellant Mahesh has been convicted of the offense of murder under Section 302/34 and of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and for one year respectively by order dated 17-5-1984 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur in ST. No. 627 of 1983.2. An FIR in this case was lodged by one Shri Ram Kumar Singh. According to communications in this F.I.R. as also the statement of the accused miller Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused, the informant and the deceased and one Nam Singh were all real brothers. We are not concerned with Nem Singh here. Ram Kumar Singh is serving in Bareily while Dharmendra and Mahesh used to live in a house and at the same time Nem Singh and the mother of all, used to live in another room of the same house. Mahesh Singh had a wife Chameli, though, according to Ram Kumar, she was merely a purchased concubine but that is not going to matter such.3. The prosecution story over...
Tag this Judgment!