Allahabad Court April 2000 Judgments

C.D. Singh Vs. Ito

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(All)282

ORDERBy the BenchIn these four appeals the assessee has, in addition to challenging the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to various additions and findings on merits including as to whether income included in assessee's assessments did belong to assessee or the Hindu undivided family styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, has challenged the very validity of initiation of the proceeding under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by way of following grounds.Ground No. 1.1Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under section 147 and the assessment made thereunder.Ground No. 1.2Because there existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief' that as far as the appellant was concerned, his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, and consequently the initiation of proceedings thereunder as also the ass...

NasiruddIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)2UPLBEC1210

Bhanwar Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Nasimuddin, who was elected Chairman of Nagar Palika. Chandpur, Bijnore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 22.7.1999 and 9.9.1999, passed by the Government of U.P. and the District Magistrate. Bijnore respectively. Another writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Adhyaksh. Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandpur, District Bijnore has been sought.2. The matrix of the petitioner's case is that he was elected as Chairman of Chandpur Nagar Palika Parishad and took oath of his office on 1.12.1995. He discharged his duty satisfactorily for more than two years. However, in March, 1998, the District Magistrate, Bijnore directed the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on an unsigned and undated complaint. Under the pressure of the politica...

Prabha Kakkar (Smt.) Vs. Joint Director of Education and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)2UPLBEC1378

R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21561 of 1998, a learned Single Judge noticed contrary views expressed by two Division Benches. Consequently, he referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated 9th July, 1998 for constituting a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict. Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated 23rd July, 1998 constituted this Full Bench to resolve the controversy and thus this bunch of Writ Petitions has come before us.2. Before coming to the controversy, which is subject-matter of consideration before this Full Bench, it is necessary to look into the backgrounds in which the dispute has arisen.3. Petitioners are teachers serving in Government aided private educational institutions. There was disparity in service conditions of the teachers serving in Government run institutions and those serving in Government aided private educational institutions. Government of India appointed Secondary Education Service Commission, which made certain r...

Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4935

M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-7-1980 passed by Sri M. N. Kulshrestha, the then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 316 of 1979. The accused-appellants are 1. Jai Singh, 2. Atar Singh ,3. Lal Singh, 4. Mohar Singh, 5, Beer Singh, 6. Ramesh, and 7. Baburam. Each of them has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C., three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C., six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 452, I.P.C. Accused-appellants-Jai Singh, Atar Singh, Mohar Singh, Beer Singh and Baburam have further been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The remaining two accused-appellants-Ramesh and Lal Singh have been further convicted under...

Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1747

G. P. Mathur, J.1. Large number of writ petitions have been filed by petty diesel dealers praying that the Government Order dated 21.8.1998 prohibiting them from using a dispensing pump and underground tank be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the authorities to issue them a licence in Form (XII) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976, and also to convert their retail licence for sale of diesel into a whole sellers licence. Two such writ petitions in which leading argumentswere advanced are being disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners were granted licence for selling diesel in retail in accordance with U. P. High Speed Diesel OH and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Control Order). They were appointed as 'petty diesel dealers' by the District Magistrate. The State Government issued an order on 21.8.1998 directing that the petty diesel dealers shall not be permitted to store diesel in an underground ...

Municipal Board, Dehradun Vs. Mohammad Akbar Farruqui and Another

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2296

Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. 1. This is defendant No. 1's, First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.1981 passed by Sri A. H. Ansari, Civil Judge. Court No. 2, Dehradun decreeing Original Suit No. 213 of 1972, filed for (i) issuing a permanent injunction restraining it (defendant No. 1) andits Employees and Agents from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, over the land known as Mohammedan's Grave Yard situated at Kanwali Road. Dehradun described at the foot of the plaint and (ii) awarding costs.2. The suit was originally filed by Waqf Masjid Khurbara, Dehradun, through its Secretary Asgar Ali and 10 others whose names were expunged and in their place respondent No. 1 was substituted. His case in short was as follows; The land bearing Municipal No. 13. Kanwali Road. Dehradun, measuring is bighas, is a Muslim Cemetery in respect of which no land revenue is payable ; it is also exempt from assessment by the Municipali...

Mahesh Kumar Garg and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)2UPLBEC1426

Pradeep Kant, J.1. 'Child Labour' is a universally acknowledged problem with so un-proportionate and explosive dimensions that it had been a cause of serious concern since long and all Acts. Regulations and declarations made in this behalf had not been able to meet the challenge, effectively. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) was promulgated looking to the fact that although there were number of Acts which prohibit the employment of children below 14 and 15 years in certain specified employment but there was no procedure laid down in any lay for deciding in which employment's occupations or processes, the employment of children should be banned. It was also found that there was also no law to regulate the working conditions of the children in most of the employments where they were not prohibited from working in exploitative conditions. The Act intended to :(i) to ban the employment of children i.e., those who have ...

Sohan Singh Alias Swaran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000CriLJ3929

ORDERJ.C. Mishra, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-9-94 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-7-1984 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Pilibhit convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1000/ - and further convicting him under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and fine Rupees 500/-.2. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the alleged offence was committed on 25-5-82 and after such a long time it would not be desirable to send the accused to jail. He contended that the Courts below committed illegality in holding that the sample of cow milk was adulterated as it contained ...

Satya NaraIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant has challenged the orders of the first respondent (Union Government) whereby the other respondents Uttar Pradesh State Government, the second respondent, The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, the third respondent and the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Uttar Pradesh the fourth respondent have been directed to repatriate him to the Indian Police Service of Andhra Pradesh Cadre, and sought for directions to the respondents not to interfere with his functioning till he completes the total tenure of five years of deputation from the date of his joining.2. The undisputable facts from the pleadings and the submissions of Counsel of all parties briefly stated are these : The applicant, a native of village Gangharpur, P.S. Achhalda, district Etawah of Uttar Pradesh was appointed to IPS and was allotted to IPS Cadre of Andhra Pradesh after his selection through the Civil Services Examination of the year 1986 conducted by the UPSC. He served in different posts ...

Goel M.G. Gases Ltd., New Delhi and Another Vs. Manju Sharma and Other ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1727; [2000(85)FLR741]; (2000)IILLJ548All

Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Biharl, JJ.1. When we pointed out toShri J. N. Tiwart, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant as to where are the substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeal, he comes up with a stand that the same is not required to be stated. We are astonished by the stand taken by Shri Tiwari.2, Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as under ;'30. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely-(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum ;l(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;(c) an order providing for' the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent;(...