Allahabad Court October 1999 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.
Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)1UPLBEC135
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Narendra Singh Yadav filed this writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash impugned order of termination dated 22nd July, 1989 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).2. It is admitted at the Bar that petition was subsequently reinstated vide order dated 8th March, 1996 issued by the then District Magistrate, Agra (Order No. 5401/Istha) referred to in another Annexure 1 to the affidfavit filed in support of the Amengment Application, copy of which has been served upon Standing Counsel.3. During the pendency of the writ petition; Petitioner died, who was suffering from Incoiloging spondelitice. Petitioner was terminated vide order dated 22nd July, 1989 because of his said illness, as is evident from the record of the present case. Since said termination order, according to the petitioner, was passed without affording opportunity, it appears that termination order was revoked by the District Magistrate, Agra vide his aforementioned order dated 8th March, 1996.4. It appears t...
CaptaIn Chand Singh Vs. Miss Preeti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC268
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts, Act against the order dated 7.9.1999 passed by Sri Z. Khan, Judge. Family Court. Agra, rejecting the appellant's plaint registered as Original Suit No 304 of 1997 under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure on account of it having been filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 Years limitation as envisaged under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Under this section, an appeal lies against the judgment and order and not against the decree. Even though under the Code of Civil Procedure, an order rejecting the plaint is a decree, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the application filed for grant of time for filing a certified copy of decree at the time of hearing of the appeal is thus dismissed.2. Incidentally the Appellant's Recall application dated 6.10,1999 seeking review of the order dated 12.5.1992 dismissing his earlier First Appeal No. 139 of 1992 has also been placed bef...
Khagendra Nath Rai and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC73; (2000)1UPLBEC716
A.K. Yog, J.1. All the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher inrecognised Primary Schools/Junior High Schools in their respective institutions but denied benefit of B.T.C. qualification under impugned orders dated 16th December. 1996 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Nainital, earlier orders dated 18th November, 1989 and 14th December, 1989 (Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition respectively) passed by Secretary. U. P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and Director. Basic Education/Chairman. U, P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad, respectively whereby persons having B.T.C. through Correspondence Course have been discriminated.2. Petitioners (14 persons in all) have filed this petition claiming writ of certiorari to quash impugned orders.3. Notice of the petition was given to the chief standing counsel before filing of the writ petition. Standing counsel represents respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad...
Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. Smt. Chamela Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC596; 2000(1)AWC147
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The order dated 4th September, 1999 passed in Misc.Case No. 19 of 1995 arising out of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 34 of 1992 has since been challenged. By the said order an application filed by the defendant-petitioner for recalling the ex parte decree dated 27th April. 1994 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 34 of 1992 has since been allowed on condition that the defendant-petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the learned trial court within one month and shall furnish security for the balance within the same period.2. Mr. Devendra Dahma, learned counsel for the revisionist contends that though the Court has discretion to direct deposit of the decretal amount in an appropriate case but the Court is bound to exercise jurisdiction Judicially and give reasons to support such exercise of discretion. He relied on the decision in the case of Valluru Kasturi Bai and another v. Pamulapati Varalakshmi, AIR 1983 NOC 176 (AP) and Raj Kumar Soni v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd...
Patil Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC193; (1999)3UPLBEC2379
V.M. Sahal, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether services of the petitioners who were appointed as untrained teachers, in junior high school in 1972, and have worked continuously since then, could be deemed to have come to an end after the institution was upgraded and came on grants-in-aid list because they were not trained teachers on the date of their appointment even though they acquired the necessary qualification and became trained teachers during service with permission of the authorities either after up-gradation of the institution or it's coming on grants-in-aid list in 1978.2. Shri Krishan Vidyapeeth Uchchatar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Chirraiya Kot. Mau (in brief institution), was granted recognition as Junior High School in 1971. On 10.3.1971 the State Government issued an order clause 5 of which permitted appointment of untrained teachers in junior high schools, subject to the condition that the appointee obtained training certifica...
Prabhat Tandon Vs. Director of Technical Education, U.P. Kanpur and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC215
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Srlpat for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1.2. By means of this writpetition, the petitioner haschallenged the impugned order dated17.3.99 and the order appointingrespondent No. 3 asPrincipal/Director. Institute ofEngineering and Rural Technology,Allahabad (hereinafter referred to asthe Institute) copy of which isAnnexure-CA 2 to the counteraffidavit. It has also been prayed thatthe petitioner be appointed in placeof the respondent No. 3 as thePrincipal Director of the Institute.3. The Institute is a recognized institution governed by the provisions of the U, P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhlniyam. 1962 (U. P. Act No. 17 of 1962) and It is recognized by the Board of Technical Education, U. P. The total funding of the Institute is by the State Government, and it Is an Instrumentality of State. Appointment of the Principal is made under Section 22E...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Bharat theatre
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: [2001]247ITR295(All); [2000]110TAXMAN297(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated April 29,1981, passed in I.TA No. 192 (Alld) of 1980 for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's claim of registration was rightly allowed by the Income-tax Officer and in that view cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 ?'2. We have heard Sri Prakash Krishna, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner, and Sri Shambhu Chopra learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. 3. The respondent claimed to be a partnership firm constituted under a deed dated June 18, 1974. The firm was constituted by four persons named below : 1. Ratan Kumar, 2. Lav Kumar, 3. Rewati Raman, 4. Madan Mohan. 4. They constructed a cinema hall na...
Bhanu Prakash Singh Vs. Chancellor, Agra University, Rai Bhawan, Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3545; (2000)1UPLBEC609
R.R.K. Trivedi and M.C. Jain, JJ. 1. In this petition, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.2. Initially petitioner claimed relief against the order dated 13.9.1994, passed by respondent No. 2 and also for a direction to respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of lecturer in Physics in Agra University and further not to confirm respondent No. 4 on the post of lecturer in Physics. However, petitioner was directed by order dated 10.4.1996 to approach the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), within a week for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The reference was directedto be decided within a month by the Chancellor. However, the writ petition was kept pending. The Chancellor by order dated 11.1.1997 decided the reference under Section 68 of the Act. By this order...
Sahara India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR475(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. An order dated January 24, 1997, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-Ill, Lucknow, respondent No. 2, under Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 of the Income-tax Act; 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act', is under challenge in these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which are before the court for admission.2. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions at Allahabad. He submits that the cause of action for instituting the writ petitions arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the court inasmuch as the impugned order Was passed at Lucknow ; and that no part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the court. Thus, according to learned counsel, the writ petitions are cognizable by the Lucknow Bench alone.3. Countering the submission of learned cou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Padampat Singhania (Decd.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR482(All)
1. These are two references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following identical questions of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holdingthat the value of the perquisite of free imported car with chauffeur provided to the assessee by J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited in which he was a director should be the same as in the case of an employee of the company ?'2. The aforesaid question arises out of the Tribunal's orders dated January 17, 1981, and June 26, 1981, passed in ITA Nos. 1091 and 1919 of 1980 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively.3. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Sri V K. Uppadhya, learned counsel for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »