Allahabad Court February 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.
R.K. Construction Co., Fiazabad Vs. Chief Engineer, Rajya Krishi Utpad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2176
R.H. Zaidi and R.D. Shukla, JJ.1. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, parties are also same. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 363 (MB)/1993, petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction In the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.1992 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner, which was an approved contractor grade-A, was black-listed, and the amount of contract outstanding against the respondents was directed to be forfeited and adjusted in the alleged amount of excess payment of Rs. 6.56.773.09. Prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith and to release security of the petitioner was also made.3. In Writ Petition No. 745 [MB)/1993, order of the same date i.e., 15.12.1993 has been challenged, whereby registration of the petitioner as approved contractor 'A' grade was cancelled and the petitione...
In Re: Sidco Leathers Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: [2002]109CompCas436(All)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. By means of the application (A-59) filed on behalf of the company (in liquidation), it has been prayed that the confirmation of the sale of the assets of the company which were sold may not be confirmed. A similar prayer has been made, in the application (A-63) filed on behalf of the applicant IFCI and others for recalling the order accepting the highest offer of Rs. 65 lakhs and for readvertising the sale of the assets after fixing a reserve price.2. The relevant facts are that M/s. SIDCO leathers Ltd. (in liq.) was ordered to be wound up vide order dated December 16, 1993, passed by this court and the official liquidator/High Court has been appointed the liquidator. On an application filed by the official liquidator, this court had ordered that themovable and the immovable assets of the company (in liq.) may be sold by calling for tenders. Vide the order dated October 9, 1998, the highest offer to Rs. 65 lakhs in favour of M/s. Enrich Engineering Works Ltd. was acc...
Pandit Govind Prasad Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR338(All); [2000]109TAXMAN160(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of both the years under reference ?'2. The facts of this case in a nutshell are that the assessee is an individual and was assessed for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. In the return for the assessment year 1971-72, the income from property was shown as Rs. 1,750 whereas income from the business was shown as Rs. 1,200. The assessee was assessed on the income of Rs. 11,750 for that year. Similarly, for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed its return showing the income from house property as well as business income as nil. For that year the assessee was assessed at the ...
Jitendra (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3087
ORDERK.D. Shahi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The rape is a very serious crime. It not only demolishes the moral and physical structure of the prosecutrix but also demolishes the very existence of virginity of a lady; but false implication is rather more dangerous than it. In this case when the F.I.R. was lodged, it was specifically alleged that Jitendra and one more boy pounced over the prosecutrix and overpowered her as a lion, tied her mouth, physically lifted and took her in sugar cane crop and committed rape. The victim became unconscious. When she regained conscious next day instead of sugar cane crop, she was found in a room. The allegations are very serious. Had the police not taken care of it, everybody could have blamed the police like anything and all the sections of Society including Mahila Manch, Mahila Andolan and Human Rights Commission would have come on the roads with slogans 'look here in a rape case like it no action is being taken'. But everybody wi...
Nawab Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1150
Ram Kishore Singh, J.1. Thepetitioner Nawab Khan has filed this writ petition with the following prayers :(i) to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the right of the petitioner to carry on his private medical practice in Indian Medicine at district Bulandshahr. (ii) to issue a writ, direction ororder in the nature ofmandamus restraining therespondents from prohibitingthe petitioners to keep theprimary instruments ofdiagnosis of IndianMedicines , namely,Stethoscope, Thermometer,B. P. Instrument, etc. and toprovide first aid to the peoplein immediate requirement ofmedical care of as a part ofpractice of Indian Medicine. (iii) to issue any other writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) to award costs of this petition to the petitioner.2. The petitioner's case is that he has obtained a degree of 'Ayurved Ratan' from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag which ...
Kedarnath Khanna (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Cantonment Board, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1447
S.L. Saraf and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.1. Petitioner is allowed to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition for quashing the House Tax.2. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the building situate at 5, Ashoka Road, Allahabad. In the year 1997, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Income-tax department to let out the said premises for a monthly rent of Rs. 6,001 for the relevant year. The respondents issued demand notice on the petitioner for payment of Water-tax and House-tax. The said amount was a sum of Rs. 54,956 and a citation was issued on 7.11.1981.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay House-tax or Water-tax on the building let out to the Central Government and was in the occupation of the Central Government for a public purpose. The petitioner refers to Section 99(2)(f) of the provisions of Cantonments Act. 1924, which reads as follows :'99 (2).-- The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from any tax on propert...
Union of India, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi and Another Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1450
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. Union of India is a tenant of the premises in dispute, it has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 31.1.1997 and 8.12.1998 in proceeding under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short).FACTS :2. The Union Government Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi is the tenant of the premises in dispute. The rate of the tenancy was Rs. 1.500 per month, initially landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the personal need. This application was ultimately dismissed on 30.4.1998 on the ground that no application could be filed against Central Government under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It was during this case that present application under Section 21 (8) of the Act was filed. This application was allowed on 31.1.1997 enhancing rent fromRs. 1,500 per month to Rs. 21,000 per month. The Central Government f...
Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur and Another Vs. U.P. State Electricity Bo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1559
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goal,JJ.1. The Nagar Pallka Parishad.Hapur, through its Chairman hasfiled the present petition seekingredress against the actions of theUttar Pradesh State Electricity Board.It is unfortunate that the respondent,U. P. State Electricity Board is nottaking notice of the fact that theNagar Palika Parishad, Hapur is anattribute of Local-Self Government.Today. Local-Self Government hasreceived sanctity after theConstitution of India was amendedand Chapter IX-A was inserted. Thesubject matter of this Chapter is :THE MUNICIPALITIES. Thecomplaint of the Nagar PalikaParishad, Hapur is that the U. P.State Electricity Board, without anyauthority, proposes to instal a heavytransformer over the land ofNagarpalika Parishad which has notbeen rented to the Board.2. The U. P. State Electricity Board sought to have respect for the Local-Self Government, which exists in the Nagar Palika Parishad. Hapur. This exertion of power against Local-Self Government is unhealthy. It would be...
Shyam Sunder Misra Vs. Labour Court, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2170; [2000(84)FLR196]
D.K. Seth, J.1. The award dated 31st July, 1985 passed by the learned Labour Court, U. P. at Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 32 of 1984 has since been challenged in this writ petition, Mr. V. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court had come to a finding that there was no enquiry at all and, therefore, the finding of the purported enquiry cannot be sustained. Thereafter, he had held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. It is also recorded that after the said order, the employer did not propose to adduceany further evidence. By reason thereof, the order of removal from service inflicted on the petitioner by an order dated 31st January, 1978 was set aside. But the learned Labour Court refused to grant back wages on the ground that the petitioner's conduct and work were far from satisfactory, on the basis of the statement made in the rejoinder-affidavit. According to him though the jurisdiction to grant back wages is a discret...
Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999All222
Binod Kumar Roy, J.1. Whether Factory or Mill prepared 'Catechu' or Katha is a 'Forest Produce', as defined under Section 2(4) of the Forest Act is the real question which requires our adjudication in this writ petition in which the prayer of petitioner, which is a limited company, whose factory is situated at Izzatnagar District Bareilly in our State, is to quash Range Case Crime No. 16/KNP/95-96 under Rules 3/28 U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Rules, 1978 Complaint/Seizure Report dated 20-2-1996 (as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition). Its further prayer is to restrain the respondents from insisting it to take transit pass for moving Kattha manufactured by it.2. The case of the petitioner is to this effect:--(i) Since 1921 it is engaged in manufacturing Kattha out of Khair Wood, which is a natural forest wood.(ii) Kattha is produced after processing Khair wood which takes a period of about 40-45 days. Firstly upper layer of the Khair wood is removed at the Kattha p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »