Allahabad Court January 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashok Kumar Tumberia Vs. Hardwar Development Authority, Hardwar and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All220
ORDER1. This is a matter from Hardwarwhere the petitioner desires that the notices issued to him by Hardwar Development Authority dated 28, September, 1993 and 18 October, 1993, annexures 6 and 7 respectively, demanding compounding fee of Rs. 2,67,588/- for making the illegal consirue lions, be quashed.2. The Court has heard counsel for the petitioner Sri S. N. Kesarwani and Sri P. M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hardwar Development Authority.3. The Court neither agrees with the petitioner nor with the respondents. Of the illegalities which the petitioner has committed by making constructions without permission, the Hardwar Development Authority seems to have compromised the situation and nakedly watched the construction of a building which was not supposed to be made completed and then belittling and compromising its status as a Development Authority to compound a construction which had been made illegally.4. As far as the writ petition concerned it is devoid of detai...
itc Limited Vs. Rakesh Behari Srivastava and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All323
ORDER1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against an order dated 26-5-1996 recorded by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Gorakhpur, in Original Suit No. 208 of 1995 whereby he had rejected the application made by the defendant-revisionists under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the I.T.C. for reliefs that they may be restrained from selling a particular brand of cigarette. The defendants took up a preliminary objection on two counts. It was stated that the plaint' did not disclose any cause of action and that the suit was barred under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. On these two pleas the defendants moved a prayer for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. This prayer was dismissed which had given rise to the present revision application.2. There, arc however, certain other complications which must be stated before thematter is taken up for decision. After t...
Surendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC256
M. Katju, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Goel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Bahadur for the respondents.2. The petitioner had been appointed after the termination of service of one Dharamvir Singh, an L.T. grade teacher in the institution. When the termination of service of Dharamvir Singh was quashed, the petitioner's service was terminated. Hence he has filed this petition.3. Section 16-EE (1) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act states as follows :-'16-EE. Absorption or retrenched employees.- (1) Where any employee of an institution has been retrenched on or after July 1, 1974 but before the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, and such employee possesses minimum qualifications prescribed therefor on the date of initial appointment, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, on an application made in this behalf direct that subject to the provisions of this section, such employee be absorbed against any permanent vacancy occurring in the same or any other ...
Ashraf and ors. Vs. Nagar Kshetra Samiti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC264
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. The record of these writ petitions are such that the Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter for the simple reason that it neither agrees with the petitioners nor with the respondents.2. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashi Nandan, and Mr. Y.K. Saxena, on behalf of the Town Area, Bidhuna, District Etawah, at length. All the writ petitioners raise common questions.3. On facts on which there is no issue is that the petitioners had their Khokhas, that is to say kiosks, on the pavement of the Achhalda-Bidhuna road and on the Fast State Bank of India read. The administration decided to remove the kiosks from the road side and make permanent constructions. For this it took money for those who were to squat on the road side. The plot within the confines of these two roads is Nazul land. On this there is a plan to construct a commercial complex. In so far as the commercial complex on this plot is concerned, as long as...
M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kailash Motors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All314
ORDER1. The present revision has been filed by the tenant under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1985 passed by Sri D. C. Srivastava, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 117 of 1982.2. By the decree which is impugned in the present revision, respondent's suit for eviction of the applicant from the accommodation and land in suit, which in the common parlance is called 'petrol pump' and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 1-7-80 till the date of eviction has been decreed with cost.3. For the purpose of effective disposal of the revision, facts of the case which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows:--M/s. Kailash Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') under an agreement dated 4-7-1960 let out the property in suit (hereinafter called 'building') to M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of ten years with the liberty to...
Sardar Mahendra Singh Vs. Commissioner/Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun De ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC481
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a case from Dehradun. The matter relates to certain constructions which have been treated unauthorised by the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and consequently ordered for demolition. The first order which has been impugned is dated 24 November, 1986, Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, In proceedings No. 2 of 1984, 571 of 1986, in the matter of Sardar Rajendra Singh, 49/2, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg, Dehradun. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Dehradun, acting as the appellate authority of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority. The appeal was numbered as R.B.O. No. 6 of 1986-87. The appellate decision is dated 9 November, 1987, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to impugn these decisions and desires that they be quashed and submits that there is no illegality in his action of the constructions which he has made having been declared as unauthorised and ordered for demol...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: [1997]227ITR631(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi) referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1976-77 for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest income of Rs. 4,334 in all, which accrued to the three minor children of the assessee, was not income which arose directly or indirectly to the minor children of the assessee from their admission to the benefits of partnership in the firms 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,334 made under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. A notice was sent to the assessee by registered post as early as on September 15, 1981. The registered envelope has not been received backundelivered and, therefore, the petitione...
B.i.C. Ltd. Cawnpore Woollen Mills Branch and ors. Vs. Provident Fund ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1145All
Srivastava, J. 1. These three petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. involving common question of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 3619 of 1982, 10 petitioners have challenged the complaint dated March 5, 1980 filed by Provident Fund Inspector, after obtaining requisite sanction for prosecution of the petitioners under Section 14A(1) of the Provident Fund Act. In the Other Petition No.3620 of 1982 similar complaint filed on January 8, 1980 has been challenged and in the third petition identical complaint against the petitioners filed on May 17,1980 has been challenged.3. The record shows that Sri. J.N.Tiwari Advocate represented the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite Party No.2 was represented by learned A.G.A. but no counter affidavit has been filed by either of them. Sri J.N.Tiwari is not present even in the revised list as such Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. have b...
Manak Chand Jaiswal and Co. and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(All)205
BY THE COURT :Heard counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dt. 20th Jan., 1983 (annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the CIT, Allahabad under S. 264 of the IT Act, 1961.3. The assessee - a partnership firm - executed certain works under a contract which it entered with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) during the accounting year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The assessee disclosed total payments at Rs. 4,38,551 in the P&L; a/c after deducting the cost of the material, supplied by the UPSEB. Later, from the Audit Report, the assessing authority discovered that the assessee did not take into account the cost of the material, supplied by the UPSEB to disclose the total payments, received from the UPSEB and then reassessment proceedings under S. 148 of the IT Act were initiated against the petitioners. The assessing authority while making reassessment observed as under :'Thus the total gross payments amount to Rs. 5,38,473 on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›