Allahabad Court April 1999 Judgments

Mansha Ram and Another Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societ ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2334; (1999)2UPLBEC1488

D.K. Seth, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners had taken a simple but an interesting point. An order has been passed in exercise of Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act by the District Assistant Registrar. According to Mr. Triloki Nath, power under Section 128 can be exercised only by the Registrar since the said section prescribes Registrar as the only authority who could exercise such power. However, there are provisions by which such powers could be delegated by specific order issued by the Government to officers other than the Registrar, by reason of the definition of the expression 'Registrar' contained in Section 2 (r). In the present case, there having been no delegation of power under Section 128 to any officer other than the Registrar, the said power cannot be exercised by any other officers unless an order is passed under subsection (2) of Section 3. In the absence of any such order passed by the State Government under subsection (2) of Section 3, the...

Shyam Sunder Jalan Vs. Cit

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN329(All)

ORDERWe have heard Shri Vikram Gulati, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Govind Krishna, the learned counsel for the opposite party.The following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this court :1. 'Whether the provisions of section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act are applicable when the assessee had already made a disclosure of income under Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1975 for the relevant year ?2. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the income computation by the department aggregating to Rs. 53,054 in respect of the three years under consideration was justified ?'2. Shri Vikram Gulati appearing for the assessee submits that since the assessee has made disclosure of income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1975, the issuance of notice under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is illegal and unte enable arid the reassessment made under the aforesaid ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. U. P. National Mfg Ltd. (Asstt. C ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. The common issue involved in all these appeals by the Revenue of 3 different appellants of the same group relates to the imposition of penalties under s. 271C of the IT Act for failure to deduct and pay the tax at source as required by the provisions of s. 194H of the IT Act.For the sake of convenience, we proceed to decide these appeals by this consolidated order. The common ground, except the quantum of penalty, for all these 3 cases, as taken by the Revenue, runs as under : "That the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in cancelling the penalty under s. 271C of Rs. 9,99,513 in spite of the clear-cut provision as laid down in s. 271C that the person failing to deduct the tax as required by s. 194H shall be liable for penalty under s. 271C. Further the CIT(A)'s order in A. No. 41/TDS/VNS/1992-93 dt. 12th March, 1993, on similar issue has not been accepted by the Department and the matter is still sub judice before the Tribunal." 2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative a...

Om Prakash Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Ballia and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1628

G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionhas been field for quashing the orders dated 24.6.1997 passed by the prescribed authority and 7.3.1998 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ballia.2. The dispute relates to election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Charwa Barwa, which is reserved for a male Scheduled Caste person. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 27.3.1995 and the election was held in April, 1995. In all, nine persons filed their nomination papers. After the election and counting of votes, the writ petitioner Om Prakash was declared to have been elected as Pradhan as he had secured highest number of votes. Niranjan Das-respondent No. 4 filed an election petition under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of Om Prakash on several grounds and the main ground was that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste Community. The prescribed authority by his order dated 2...

N.K. Mehrotra and Another Vs. Union of India, Trough General Manager, ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1810

Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has prayed that an arbitrator be appointed in respect of the reference made by the petitioner in the matter of contract No. E/10/TC dated 12.8-1994.2. The version of the petitioner is that North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly issued a tender notice through the Civil Engineering Department of the Railway Division of North Eastern Railway No. 1 /94 dated 3.2.1994 in respect of the contract work. The petitioner submitted a tender which was duly accepted and he started working on the basis of the said contract. The terms and conditions of the contract which was assigned by the petitioner were governed by the Regulations for Tenders and Contracts of the Engineering Department. In this respect, clauses 63 and 64 of the Regulations for Tenders and Contracts are relevant which are quoted herein :'63. All disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising but of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the work or after it...

Mishil Singh Yadav Vs. District Co-op. Bank Ltd., Etawah and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2099

D. K. Seth, J. 1. Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was recruited in the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Etawah by virtue of Regulation 5 (i) (c) of the U. P. Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulation, 1975 in the post of Clerk. According to him, the petitioner was sought to be posted at a higher post but the Institutional Service Board did not accord approval to the same and held the recruitment to the post of clerk. Subsequently, the Cooperative Society by resolution contained in Annexure-9 purported to appoint the petitioner on the post of Inspector. But this resolution does not bear any date. But Mr. Tripathi contends that the same is part of Annexure-9 which is dated 14.12.1993. Therefore, the said resolution should be treated to be dated 14.12.1993. He claims that on the basis of the said resolution, the petitioner had been working on the post of Inspector continuously though he is being paid his salary on the post of cler...

Canossa Hospital Society and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)ILLJ135All

R.H. Zaidi and Kamal Kishore, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification No. 4190/XXXVI-3-21 (M.W.)-83 dated Lucknow, December 1, 1984 issued by the State of U.P. Labour Department.3. In exercise of the powers under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and after considering objections and suggestions received in respect of proposals published with Government Notification No. 4491/XXXVI-3/21 (M.W.)-83 dated January 19, 1984, the Governor fixed the minimum rates of wages for employees employed in Private Coaching Classes, Private Schools including Nursery Schools and Private Technical Institutions in Uttar Pradesh with effect from the date of publication of Notification in the Gazette i.e. on...

Dollar Detergents (P) Ltd. Vs. Cegat

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(68)ECC565; 2000(116)ELT30(All)

ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 27-5-1998 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the conditions of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act').2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents at the admission stage.3. By an order dated 30-12-1991 the Additional Collector of Central Excise levied a sum of Rs. 1,07,275.30 paise as excise duty and a sum of Rs. 1 lac as penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Under Section 35F of the Act, no appeal is entertainable unless the adjudicated dues are paid off. The proviso to Section 35F, however, authorises the appellate authority to waive the conditions and t...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U. P. National Manufacturing ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(All)503

ORDERI. S. Verma, J.M.The common issue involved in all these appeals by the revenue of 3 different appellants of the same group relates to the imposition of penalties under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for failure to deduct and pay the tax at source as required by the provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act. For the sake of convenience, we proceed to decide these appeals by this consolidated order. The common ground, except the quantum of penalty, for all these 3 cases, as taken by the revenue , runs as under :'That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and facts in cancelling the penalty under section 271C of Rs. 9,99,513 in spite of the clear-cut provision as laid down in section 271C that the person failing to deduct the tax as required by section 194H shall be liable for penalty under section 271C. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) order in A. No. 41/TDS/VNS/1992-93 dated 12-3-1993, on similar issue has not been accepted by the department and the matter is still s...

R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3605

S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The petitioner Is one of the seniormost officers of the Indian Administrative Service. He was suspended from service. Thereafter he filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal sitting at Lucknow. The Central Administrative Tribunal refused to entertain the application mainly on two grounds ; Firstly, that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy as provided under Rule 16 of the Indian Administrative Service Rules by filing an appeal before the UnionGovernment, and secondly, that it has not been vested with the power to entertain an original application in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is reproduced as under :'20. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.--(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to r...