Allahabad Court November 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.
Aircel Digilink India Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Nagar Nigam, Allahabad and A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC562
Bhagwan Din, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its branch office at shop Nos. 2 and 3, Meena Bazar, 10 Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. The Government of India has granted a licence on 28.12.1995 under the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. Under the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner, inter alia, erectedtowers/posts at different sites, one such tower was erected on the roof of the building of Sri Sushil Purwar situated in Mohalla, Rani Mandi, Allahabad. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari (M.N.A.) exercising powers under Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam. 1959') served a notice dated 3.7.1999 that on the inspection by the Officers of the department, it was found that the building is about 60-70 years old, on the roof of this building a 60 feet high S. R. Mobile Phone tower has been erected,...
Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Regional Food Controller and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1034
G. P. Mathur, J.1. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.2. The Regional Food Controller. Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur issued a notice inviting tenders for handling and transport work of food grains/sugar for the centres in districts Gorakhpur. Bastl, Sant Kabir Nagar, etc. A large number of persons including the petitionerssubmitted tenders. The Regional Food Controller accepted the tender of Satya Prakash Agraharl for the district of Bastl and that of Satya Prakash Slngh Baghel for the district of Sant Kablr Nagar. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No, 1 by which the tenders of the aforesaid persons have been accepted.3. In Writ Petition No. 23554 of 1999 filed by Radhey Shyam Gupta, the rates submitted by the petitioner and that of the persons whose tender has been accepted are given below :GroupName of TendererRate offeredTransportationUnloading/Loading...
Trilok Chand Seth Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. and Wealth-tax Off ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR658(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and involve identical controversy. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family which is assessed to wealth-tax. The petitioner carries on business in the name of Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers. Writ Petition No. 423 of 1986 challenges the notice issued by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, proposing to revise the petitioner's assessments for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. A copy of the notice dated March 10/14, 1986, is annexure 5 to the writ petition. It states that in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee (petitioner), the capital balance of the firm, Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers and Kashi Nath Jewellery House, have been included ...
Gyan Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2802
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. This revision has been filed by the accused persons against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1999 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 5-5-1999 passed by the appellate Court convicting and sentencing the applicants in revision to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C.2. When this revision came up for admission before this Court, the same was admitted only on the question of sentence by the order dated 8-6-1999. By the same order as far as the conviction of the applicants under Section 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C. was concerned, this Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below and this Court affirmed the order of conviction passed against the applicants in revision.3. Learned counsel for the applicants in revision argued before this Court that the order of sentence as recorded by the Court below is vitiated in law a...
Trilok Chandra Seth Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN289(All)
Agarwal, J. - These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and involve identical controversy. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a HUF which is assessed to wealth- Tax'. The petitioner carries on business in the name of Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers. Writ Petition No. 423 of 1986 challenges the notice issued by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 Income Tax Act proposing to revise the petitioner's assessments for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. A copy of the notice dated 10/ 14-3-1986 is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It states that in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee (petitioner), the capital balance of the firm Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers and Kashi Nath Jewellery House have been included in ...
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ramagya Chaubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1061
S.R. Singh, J.1. The above three appeals are knit together by common questions of law and fact and hence for convenience sake, they have been taken up for disposal by a composite Judgment.2. Special Appeal Nos. 240 of 99 and 410 of 99 stem from an order of the learned single Judge thereby allowing Civil Misc. writ petition No. 44649 of 1993 on the lines of judgment rendered in Civil Misc. writ petition NO. 24976 of 1993, Ramagya Chaubey v. State of U. P. and others, validity of which has come to be canvassed in Special Appeal No. 387 of 1998. The disputation pertains to recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector Civil Police, numbering 630-570 (male) and 60 (female) vide advertisement dated 4.10.91 (annexured as Annexure-1 to theaffidavit in support of the stay application) as amended vide notification dated 26.10.1991. According to the initial advertisement, 525 vacancies were publicised out of which 475 were earmarked for male candidates and 50 for female candidates but the initial ad...
Rama Nand Pandey Vs. Director, Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC491; [2000(84)FLR792]; (2000)1UPLBEC495
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on 20.7.1964 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur City which was a private institution established in the year 1956 for imparting education to deaf and dumb students. The institution received grant-in-aid from the State Government since 1958. The petitioner was suspended by the manager of the institution on 29/30.3.87. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.87/14.4.87. He denied the allegations. It is alleged by the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry nor gave any opportunity of hearing to defend himself and submitted the report against him.2. Before a final decision could be taken in the matter of the petitioner, the institution was taken over by the State Government by G.O. dated 11.7.88. It was renamed asRajkiya Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya. Gorakhpur. Since the institution was taken over by the Government, the petitioner became an employ...
Shiv Nath Seth Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC671; (2000)1UPLBEC363
Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. In Uttar Pradesh, the Court has had several occasions noticing usurpation and illegal occupation of the properties of citizens in violation of the procedure established by law. This is another case. The Court will revert to other cases subsequently in this order.2. The petitioner, Shiv Nath Seth, resident of Kerakat, Post Office Sadar, district Jaunpur, had his Bhumidhari plots No. 12/164 area 32 decimal and plot No. 2 area 3 decimal walked into by the respondents without any authority and on theproperty of the petitioner, the U. P. Jal Nigam, established under the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, constructed a pumping set and sewerage drain under the Gomti Pollution Control Project.3. The petitioner complains that after the plot had been occupied and taken, ostensibly for establishing a public project, the 'acquisition' should have been made under the procedure established by law so that the petitioner could object to the acquisition, which, if rejected...
Smt. Shahjahan and Others Vs. Vth Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1160
Sudhir Naraln, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 8.4.1994 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision against the said judgment and decree.2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondents filed SCC Suit No. 465 of 1993 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of shop No. 2 situated in Purwa Haftz Abdul Karim, Machheran. Kesar GanJ, Meerut and the defendant was the tenant in the said shop at monthly rent of Rs. 60. This shop was demolished on 15.9.1976 by the Cantonment Board, Meerut. In conspiracy with the tenant and after demolition of the shop, the defendant did not vacate the disputed premises. The plaintiff sent a notice on 10.11.1976 demanding arrears of rent from 1.7.1976 to 31.10.1976 and called upon him to vacate the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. GramIn Sadhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR563(All); [2001]116TAXMAN222(All)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated January 11, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, in I. T. A. No. 1736 (All.) of 1994, for the assessment year 1991-92 whereby it upheld an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Act.2. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner-appellant.3. Under Section 44AB, as it stood during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was required to get its accounts audited by an accountant before the specified date. This specified date was October 31, 1991. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on February 11, 1992, and the audit report in terms of Section 44AB was filed along with the return. The Assessing Officer treated it to be a default on the part of the assessee under Section 271B and levied penalty in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »