Allahabad Court January 1997 Judgments
Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. M/S. Unique Construction, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All341
1. Interesting question for consideration arising from this appeal filed against the impugned order dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes, Court, Ghaziabad on the application of the respondent, made under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (briefly, the Act) is whether the court below on the facts and circumstances of this case was right in exercising the power to appoint an arbitrator.2. The parties entered into an agreement which contained an arbitration clause (Annexuie 'I' to the affidavit accompanying the stay application made by the appellant). Referring to the arbitration clause Sri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the parties agreed that the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) will be the sole arbitrator and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 20(4) of the Act to appoint any other arbitrator. His submission is that so long as the parlies have agreed about an individual for being...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.P. Rastogi and ors. Vs. Meerut University and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC415
M. Katju and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. 1. This is an application to review the jugment dated 27-11-1995 passed by the Bench of Hon'ble Paritosh K. Mukherji J. and Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, JJ. Since Hon'ble Paritosh K. Mukherji, J. has retired and Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, JJ. is sitting in Lucknow Bench of this Court, Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated 2-12-1996 has nominated this review application before us.2. Heard Shri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners.3. In our opinion this application is liable to be rejected on the short ground that the applicants have no locus standi in the matter. Admittedly, this application for review has not been filed by the Committee of Management, but by certain members of the Committee of Management.4. In our opinion, an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi in such cases and it is only the Committee of Management alone which can appear as a party in the case. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Computers Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(All)127; [1998]233ITR366(All)
1. Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, advocate, standing counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri S. Chopra and Sri Tapas Mishra, advocates, for the assessee.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reference of the following question to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the addition of Rs. 72.05 lakhs holding that no real profit has arisen on the un-expired period of annual maintenance contract.'3. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 72.05 lakhs in respect of the un-expired period of annual maintenance contract. Till the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-company used to record the receipt of a...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta M.C. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ1016All
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated February 27, 1982 as well as earlier award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated September 23, 1981. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. After perusal of the impugned awards I am not inclined to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. It appears that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 2 and he was charge sheeted on various allegations such as abusing, threatening and beating the officer Sri N.K.Jain, etc. After a domestic enquiry was held in which he was given opportunity of hearing his service was terminated. Aggrieved he raised an industrial dispute but the Labour Court decided against the petitioner, hence this petition. 3. The findings against the petitioner are findings of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. The Labour Court has considered the evidence of the parties in great detail and recorded the findings. The...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]111STC35(All)
Maithli Sharan, J.1.In this petition, the grievance raised is against the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81. Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act permits reopening of the assessment already made, in case there is reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed to tax or on the ground that the deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner manufactures steel wires which are used as raw material by other manufacturers of certain notified items. The petitioner sells the manufactured steel wires to other dealers. In the present case certain sales were made to purchasers who held eligibility certificate granted to them under Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Ganguly Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC933
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order dated 29.1.1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) dismissing the petitioner form service and imposing a disqualification for future employment any where either in Government or autonomous body on undertaking inflicted by the Director, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Assailing the impugned order Mr. A.P. Shahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner raises three grounds: (i) inspection of documents demanded by the petitioner was not accorded to him, the petitioner was disallowed from examining the witnesses list of which was furnished, accepting 14 out of them and that before inflicting punishment, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, by reason whereof there has been violation of principles of natural justice vitiating the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed (ii) assuming not admitting that the charges were proved and the petitioner was guilty, even that event, the pun...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kishore Kela Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas668(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts are that the appellant had taken a loan from the respondent-bank, Union Bank ofIndia. When the appellant failed to repay the loan, respondent No. 1 issued a recovery certificate to the Revenue authorities to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.2. The contention, of the appellant is that the matter is governed by the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'), and, therefore, in view of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act of 1972, the respondent-bank is under a legal obligation to proceed first against the mortgaged/hypothecated properties and that no recovery certificate could be issued to the Revenue authorities for making the recovery straightaway.3. Considering the provisions of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act of 1972, we are in complete agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. Section 4(2)(b) enjoins upon the respondent-bank to proceed first against the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Baghel Construction Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(All)74; [1998]234ITR690(All)
1. Heard Sri V.K. Rastogi, advocate, for the petitioner, and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior standing counsel, for the respondents on admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the vires of Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act and Circular No. 737 dated February 23, 1996, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and seeks certain consequential reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 44AD, which raises a presumption of gross profits at the rate specified therein in respect of an assessee engaged in the business of civil construction, is arbitrary and that the impugned circular does not allow an assessee the benefit of Section 40(b) of the Act with retrospective effect and as such both the provisions are liable to be struck down. However, we do not see any merit in the submission. Sub-section (5) of Section 44AD makes the provision of Sub-section (1) of that section optional by providing that nothing contained in Sub-sections (1) to (4) of that s...
Tag this Judgment!indra Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ334All
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner's father who was working with the respondents had died. The petitioner applied for the employment on compassionate ground and he was appointed by the respondents on April 4, 1989 on a class IV post. The petitioner was not satisfied and according to him he possessed the qualification which made him eligible for Class III post.2. As the petitioner was not offered class III post, he filed a writ petition No. 26272 of 1993 before this Court and this Court vide an interim order dated December 9, 1993 directed the respondents to give the petitioner class III post. As the petitioner was not given the class III post in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner again approached this Court and this Court vide its order dated November 13, 1994 directed the respondents to ensure the compliance of the order of this Court passed on December 9, 1993. The direction issued by this Court was complied with and the petitioner was given employment in class III post. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ112All; (1997)1UPLBEC269
ORDERR.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the common award dated July 17, 1996 and questions of fact and law involved are identical. All the petitions can thus be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment to which parties have no objection. Writ Petition No. 35145 of 1996 shall be the leading case.2. Facts, in short, giving rise to these petitions are that Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kan-pur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) appointed respondents workmen in these petitions as clerks for the period May 5, 1981 to July 22, 1981 and then from August 4, 1981 to August 13, 1981. From August 14, 1981 they were not allowed to work on these posts. The concerned workmen raised an Industrial dispute which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal vide order dated August 20, 1986. Both the parties filed their written statements and adduced evidence. The case of the workmen was that there were permanent vacancies of clerks on which they wer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »