Allahabad Court September 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.
Vishwanath Gupta Vs. Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy, Federation, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC354
D. K. Seth, J.1. Services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 2.1.1990 which has since been challenged by means of the present petition. The said order is Annexure A-7 to the writ petition,2. Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that no writ lies against the co-operative society, In which the petitioner was engaged since service of the petitioner is not covered by U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Admittedly, by reason of the decision of the Full Bench in 1982 UPLBBC 89, no writ lies against a co-operative society which is not obliged to discharge statutory obligations, therefore, if the petitioner's services are not governed by statutory rule, then the writ is not maintainable. Admittedly, the said regulation was applicable in the co-operative society in which the petitioner was employed. However, by virtue of notification dated 17.11.1979, U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board ceased to operate regardin...
YasIn and Others Vs. Mohd. Siddique and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC465
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal.2. The brief facts are that plaintiff Mohammad Siddique filed a suit against the defendant Rahimuddin for specific performance of agreement to sell. The trial court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred, which was allowed. The appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. It is, therefore, this second appeal.3. At the time of admission of this appeal, only two questions of law were formulated. The first was whether the suit was premature and the second waswhether the above plea of the suit being premature, which was not taken in the written statement, can be raised in the second appeal.4. Another application was moved on 3rd March, 1997 wherein additional substantial question of law was formulated. Since the appeal was already admitted only on two substantial questions of law, any other substantial question of law can be permitted to be raised and argued only with the permission o...
Bir Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: I(1999)ACC101; 1998(1)AWC708
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents not to grant/Issue permits on Dehradun-Vikas Nagar--Dak Paththar via Prem Nagar. This relief has been sought on the ground that the route is a notified route. In out opinion, it is not necessary to issue any direction in this regard. If the route in question or any part thereof is a notified route, then permit cannot be granted on the same.3. We thus dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondent No. 1 that whenever they propose to grant any permit on the aforesaid route, they shall hear the petitioner who is an existing operator on the route and pass a speaking order on his objection before granting a permit. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all questions of law and fact In their objection. The interim order dated 5.12.1990 is discharged....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navdurga Transport Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(All)219; [1999]235ITR158(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question relating to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the three trucks ?'2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm came to be constituted under a partnership deed dated October 6, 1973. It consisted of seven partners, Sarvasri Moti Lal Agarwal, Anand Agarwal, Anil Agarwal, Pradeep Agarwal, Prem Ji Agarwal, Murari Swaroop and Sub-hash Godbole. The firm was constituted to carry on transport business in the name and style : 'Messrs. Nav Durga Transport Company'. Whereas, the first four partners contributed capital of Rs. 600, Rs. 700, Rs. 600 and Rs. 1,100, respectively, the other three partners brought their trucks into the firm as their contribution. The firm appointed three a...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(All)307; [1999]235ITR228(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition a demand of Rs. 2,12,855 by way of interest has been challenged. The facts in a nutshell are as follows :The petitioner-company was an agent of a non-resident Indian, one Scheither Walter, under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1975-76, a return was filed by one Sri T. C. Gupta, Chief Taxation Manager of Modi Rubber Ltd. Since the said return was not a valid return as it was not signed by the assessee himself but was signed by Sri T. C. Gupta the same was considered to be non est and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was duly issued and served upon the said Sri Gupta, Chief Taxation Manager of Modi Rubber Limited, the representative of the assessee. No return in compliance with the said notice was filed till the order of reassessment was passed. As such an ex parte proceedings for the assessment was made on the basis of the information available in the earlier invalid return. The assessment was made on the total...
Head Constable 91 Tp (Traffic Police) Nirpat Singh Vs. Senior Superint ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1913
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order dated 27th May 1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. In the said order the petitioner who is Head constable, was transferred from Traffic department to Armed Police with immediate effect by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. The said order has been assailed by Sri Tejpal learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the Senior Superintendent of Police do net have any power to transfer a Police personnel from Civil Police to other branch of the force. Secondly, he contends that the Head constable can never be transferred from the Civil Police to Armed force- His third contention is that the petitioner is a Head constable, would be entitled to further promotion in the Traffic department in a period shorter than that he would be getting if he is sent to the Armed force. Therefore the said order of transfer would result in penal consequences. He next contends that by reason of the ...
Shree Ram Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC523
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.9.1997 by which he has been transfered from Kanpur Nagar to Mainpuri. The said order is Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.2. Mr. Prem Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the said order on the ground that Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel) is not of the Dy. Inspector General of Police of the range in which the petitioner was working and has been transferred. Therefore, the said order of transfer is violative of provisions contained in Regulation 520 of the U.P. Police Regulation (hereinafter called as the Regulations). According to him unless there is specific provisions for delegation, the post having specified, the order could be passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel) in the absence of any provisions for delegations of power in the said Regulations. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel) is not competent to pass the order. According to him, the order of transfer should be...
Nirmal Kumar Jain, Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC108; (1998)1UPLBEC200
A.N. Gupta and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ.1. By means of this petition, Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur has challenged the Order No. 3637/2-4-97-26/2(28)/87, dated 4th June, 1997, whereby the State Government have compulsorily retired Sri Jain with effect from 19th August, 1997. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order and has also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering the petitioner in the continuance of service till he attains the age of 60 years.2. Petitioner was appointed as Munsif-Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva and he joined on 6th December, 1976. He was confirmed on 24.7.1982. He was promoted to the next higher rank of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4.12.1985. The petitioner was promoted to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 27.5.1996. The petitioner claims to have an impeccable service record. He alleged that no adverse entry ...
Smt. Akbari Begum and Others Vs. Mohd. Farook
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC317
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal.2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff Mohd. Faruque filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint against the defendant Manjoor Ahmad, on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner of the property under a registered gift-deed dated 6th September, 1958. The defendant Manjoor Ahmad was granted licence of the disputed portion on his request on licence fee of Rs. 10 per month only for six months. He, however, did not vacate the property and also failed to pay the licence fee with effect from 16th August. 1982. The licence was revoked by the plaintiff through the notice dated 16th March, 1983. Again neither the balance licence fee was paid nor the portion was vacated.3. The suit was contested on the ground that no licence was granted by the plaintiff and that the defendant was the owner of the house and it was in possession of his forefathers as well and long possession for more th...
Ram Adhar Yadav Vs. District Development Officer, Jaunpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC345; [1998(79)FLR485]; (1997)3UPLBEC1973
D.K. Seth, J.1. In contemplation of an enquiry on the basis of charges as indicated in the order dated 6.8.1997, the petitioner has been suspended by the District Development Officer, Jaunpur with whom he had worked during the periods 1994-95 and 1995-96. The charges also related to the period during which the petitioner was posted at Jaunpur. Admittedly, the petitioner had in the meantime been transferred to some other place in District Ballia and had been working under the District Development Officer, Ballia, By an order dated 6.8.1997, he has been sought to be suspended by District Development Officer, Jaunpur.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Development Officer, Jaunpur is not competent to issue the order of suspension when the petitioner is posted at Ballia under the District Development Officer, Ballia. Since he has been transferred to the District Ballia, the District Development Officer, Jaunpur cannot be the controlling officer of the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »