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.
Sudhakar Vs. Raghuvendra NaraIn Dixit and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1259
Naseemuddin, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 25.8.1999. passed by Sri P.N. Rai. District Judge, Unnao in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1998. Raghuvendra Narain Dixit v. Smt. Surya Mukhi Devi, whereby compromise paper No. 22 Ka-1 entered into in between Sudhakar and Raghuvendra Narain Dixit on 21.8.1999 was rejected. The appeal has been filed by Sudhakar S/o Late Kripa Shanker.2. It appears that an application was given by Raghuvendra Narain Dixit under Section 276 of the Act for issue of probate in respect of the estate of the testator Surya Mukhi Devi alias Suraj Mukhi wife of Badri Narain Dixit in respect of the property detailed in para 6 of the petition, alleging that Surya Mukhi died on 7.8.1998 and that the property detailed in para 6 of the petition was given to the alleged legatee by virtue of Will dated 14.7.1998. In this petition for issue of probate, Raghuvendra Narain Di...
Sheo Nath Gupta Vs. Pramod Kumar Misra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3593
Naseemuddin, J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant is present and has been heard. Counsel for plaintiff-opposite parties has not turned up.2. This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.5.93 passed on-Application C-2 in Original Suit No. 272 of 1991 whereby the application of the plaintiff-opposite party moved under Section 151. C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiff-opposite party was permitted to carry out the repairs as prayed in application under Section 151, C.P.C.3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant says that 'this application under Section 151. C.P.C. was not maintainable : firstly, because the suit itself was not maintainable, and secondly, because it was barred by the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The learned counsel took the Court through the entire file of the case. The facts which come out are that the defendant purchased the building in suit ...
Lakshmi Prasad and Others Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3587
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. This is defendants' revision filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 26.11.98 passed by Civil Judge. Senior Division, Bahraich, whereby issue Ncs. 7, 13 and 14 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and issue No. 12 has been directed to be decided after production of the evidence by the parties.2. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Krishna Devi filed Original Suit No. 34 of 97 for partition of the property in dispute and for permanent injunction, in the Court below. It was pleaded that the property in dispute, which has been described in Schedule A & B appended to the plaint, was joint Hindu family property, which was not partitioned. In the property In dispute, the plaintiff-respondent claimed 1/2 share on the basis of the pedigree given in the plaint, and further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants-applicants restraining them from...
Brijesh Kumar and Others Vs. Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC213
A. K. Yog, J. 1. J.--The petitioners' claim to have been appointed in the Sri Sheo Basant Das Harijan Primary Pathshala, Nasirabad Kalan, district Mau. The aforesaid School is being run by the Committee of Management respondent No. 3. The petitioners pray for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners w.e.f. 1st March. 1994 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the representations of the petitioners. Both the reliefs cannot go together.2. This Court proposes to grant first relief only, namely ; to issue a direction to respondent No. 1. Director Social Welfare Department, U. P., Lucknow to decide the representation dated 3.8.1995 and 1.9.1995, annexed as Annexures-X and XI respectively, to the present petition purported to have been filed by petitioners before said authority.3. Petitioners in the instant petition contend that the then Manager of the Management Committee of the School, illegally and unlawfully st...
Syyed Muttaqui Raza Vs. District Judge, Banda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC249; (2000)2UPLBEC1024
O. P. Garg, J. 1. A dispute has been raised in this writ petition with regard to the appointment on thepost of Sadar Munsarim in the Judgeship of Banda. As a preface, it may be mentioned that in the hierarchy of judicial administration at the district-level, the highest official in the ministerial cadre is Senior Administrative Officer which post is filled by promotion from the post of Sadar Munsarim. Sri Vinod Agnihotri, who was Senior Administrative Officer in the Banda Judgeship retired on 30.6.1999, in his place, Sri Aniruddha Krishna Maun who was admittedly working as Sadar Munsarim has been appointed as Senior Administrative Officer on 7.8.1999 by the District Judge, Banda, in this manner, the post of Sadar Munsarim fell vacant. The District Judge, Banda, constituted a committee of three Additional District Judges headed by Ist Additional District Judge. Banda. After screening of the record of the two seniormost officials, namely, the present petitioner and Deen Bandhu Awasthi, t...
Laxmi Viroja Udyog and Others Vs. Divl. Forest Officer, West Almora an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC273
Palok Basu and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.1. The petitioners in each case were highest bidders in the auction which held on different dates relating to a forest produce known as resin, the disposal of which is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act. 1976. According to the facts emerging in all these petitions, the issue raised is whether the petitioners can be asked to pay the difference between the price which they had bid and not paid for resin and the subsequent sale price which was obtained by the Forest Department for the same produce, now being recovered as arrears of land revenue.2. When the writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court called for counter-affidavits and passed an interim order staying the recovery of the amount through the citations from the petitioners. In response to the notices Issued, the State of U. P. and its officials of the Forest Department have filed a counter-affidavit in some of t...
P.C. Srivastava Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3225; (2000)1UPLBEC552
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary,JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition was initially filed challenging the suspension order, charge-sheet and show cause notice against the petitioner butsubsequently the dismissal order dated 21.4.88 has also been challenged.3. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Secretary-cum-General Manager of Janta Bazar, Allahabad. He was a permanent employee of the Co-operative Department of the U. P. Government, and was formerly functioning as Addl. District Cooperative Officer from where he was sent on deputation to the aforesaid post.4. It appears that certain misappropriation of the property of the society came to the knowledge of the petitioner when he was Secretary-curn-General Manager of Janta Bazar. Allahabad and hence he filed an F.I.R. against the miscreant, namely Rati Pal who was a Salesman in the society. True copy of the F.l.R. is annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the pe...
Agra Development Authority, Agra Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3558
J.C. Mishra, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Agra, making the award, the rule of Court on the ground that no objection was filed by either party and awarding interest at the rate of 15% from the date of order till the date of realisation on the amount awarded.2. The revision was time-barred. The application filed by the revisionist to condone the delay was allowed after hearing the parties.3. Initially the learned counsel for the opposite party had raised preliminary objection that the impugned order is not revisable and being a decree only appeal could be filed. However, during the hearing the learned counsel for the opposite party gave up this plea and argued the revision on merits.4. The grievance of the revisionist is that no notice as envisaged under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was given and therefore, the award could not be made the rule of the Court.5. The learned counsel for the op...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Purshottam Das Govind Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(All)350; [2000]245ITR45(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 44,777 on account of the difference between the enhanced price and old price of fertilisers in stock on May 31, 1974, and sold during the previous year could not be treated as the assessee's income for the assessment year 1976-77?'2. The aforesaid question arises out of the order dated June 10, 1981, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 975 (All) of 1980.3. We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.4. The Tribunal has stated the case as under :The assessee is a registered firm dealing in fertilisers and the reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The prices of fertilisers were increased with effe...
Sharda Sahayak Samadesh Kshettra Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(All)220; [2000]244ITR364(All); [2000]109TAXMAN24(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was not an authority as envisaged by Section 10(20A) and was therefore not entitled to the exemption under Clause (20A) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1901 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal rightly held that since the assessee-company's claim of carrying on business cannot be accepted and the only expenses shown to have been incurred for earning the income from interest on fixed deposits and miscellaneous income were the bank charges, only these expenses and no other expenses could be allowed as a deduction against the income from interest on fixed deposits and miscellaneous income which falls for assessment under the head 'Inc...