Allahabad Court October 2001 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Bal Bharti Nursery School
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: (2002)82ITD71(All.)
1. Appeal ITA No. 68 by the Revenue is against order of the CIT(A) dt.12th Nov., 1993 whereby he, after following the orders of his predecessor for asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1988-89 upheld the assessee's claimed that it was an institution for education and was for no profit and granted the exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act).ITA No. 633 is also appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 22nd Feb., 1994 passed in assessee's appeal against order of the AO passed under Section 251/143(3)/147--giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) dt. 12th Nov., 1993. The cross-objection is by the assessee.2. For the sake of convenience we have decided to decide both the appeals as well as the assessee's cross-objection by this consolidated order. "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in directing the AO to allow exemption under Section 10(22) of IT Act, 1961 merely placing reliance on the appellate order of asst. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Dev Karan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1154
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. State of U.P., by means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.3.1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-7 to the petition) and the order dated 31.5.1982 passed by the prescribed authority in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that it was on 29.1.1976 that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was Issued to the respondent No. 1, Dev Karan to show cause as to why an area measuring 9.49 acres in term of irrigated land, within the meaning of the term used under the Act, be not declared as surplus out of his holdings. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent No. 1 filed his objection on 17.5.1976 contending that no land out of his holdings was liable to be declared as surplus...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC169
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.2.2001. and the order dated 26.2.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the reference and setting aside the order dated 10.6.1997 of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur, making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 10.6.1997 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansi. Orders dated 28.11.1996 and 24.10.1994 passed by the Naib Tahsildar. Bans, have also been prayed to be quashed. The present writ petition has arisen out of the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC590; 2003ACJ301
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 18.7.2001 awarding Rs. 3,05,000 as compensation to claimant-respondent.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that on 31.10.1995 while the claimant-respondent was travelling by the vehicle No. UPJ 5727 at about 4 p.m. the vehicle met with accident and he received serious injuries. His arm was fractured. He was treated in the hospital and was twice operated upon and steel rod was inserted in his arm.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant.4. One of the plea was that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver had a driving licence. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent-claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,05,000.5. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged in the present appeal.6. We have heard Mr. V....
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1598
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.12.2000 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 2,29,000 to the claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that on 6.8.1998 due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus No. UP 65-G 0618 by Raj Kumar dashed with the Tempo No. UP 71-A 6924 driven by Ram Babu, he received fatal injuries. He died in the accident.3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. It was denied that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the Corporation bus. The Tribunal after considering the material and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus. The claimants-respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,29,000.4. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged in the present appeal.5. We have heard Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Chhedi Prasad Vs. Kamrunnisha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ781
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.8.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 1,09,000 to the claimants-respondents.2. We have heard Mr. D.P. Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vashishtha Tewari for the respondents.3. The claimants-respondents filed the claim petition with the allegation that on 13.11.1991 Khalil Ahmad was travelling in a jeep No. WBH 4770 which met with an accident at about 4 p.m. The driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Khalil Ahmad received serious injuries and he died on 14.11.1991.4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. The ownership of the jeep was denied. The defence of the appellant was that on the date of the occurrence, i.e., 13.11.91 he was neither owner nor in possession of the jeep. It was further denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep in question. The Tr...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Smt. Vimlesh and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC520
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.1.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 3,99,280/- to the claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that Sri Ram Ratan Lal Verma died in accident due to rash and negligent driving of Corporation Bus No. U.P. 25-6657.3. We have heard Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings recorded in regard to the award of the compensation.5. On the perusal of the judgment and facts before us, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is not excessive.6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.7. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court, shall be remitted by the Registry of this Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to the claimant-respondents....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Avadh Prasad Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC30; [2002(92)FLR8]
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Govind Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondents.2. Sri Ram Avadh Prasad, asserting to have been appointed as washerman in the upgraded Primary Health Centre, Kasia, district Deoria,approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. II, Lucknow. the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the Tribunal) praying for direction, to the opposite parties for payment to him salary for the period between May, 1982 and August, 1983, and from January, 1984, onwards. He also prayed for declaration of continuity of service with consequential benefits.3. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio in as much as it was made by an authority which was not competent, and the appointment was against a non-existent post.4. Afte...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Jyoti Picture Palace Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC626
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this petition, employers M/S. Amar Jyoti Picture Palace have prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.1998, Citation dated 24.12.1998 and the order dated 20.2.1999, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively to the petition. A perusal of Annexures 1, 2 and 3 will demonstrate that the order dated 14.12.1998 is an order passed by the appropriate authority for the recovery of a sum of 3,21,189=00 (rupees three lacs twenty one thousand one hundred eighty nine) as arrears of land revenue pursuance to the application in G.R.R.D. No. 66 of 1998. This recovery certificate dated 14.12.1998 was issued by the competent authority, namely, Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur to the district Magistrate, Deoria for the recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner-employers. Annexure-2 to the petition is the Citation issued by the Tehsildar concerned for the recovery of the said amount under the provisions of Section 280 of U.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)0UPLBEC0
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.1.1992. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner's promotion was done in category III post by the then administrator of the District Cooperative Bank Limited. Saharanpur in anticipation of approval by the respondent No. 1 U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow but as the order goes on to say that since the Board has refused to approve the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualifications. i.e., intermediate pass, so the promotion of the petitioner has been refused by the respondent No. 1 vide its resolution No. 13 (11) dated 17.10.1989 and the request made by the petitioner for relaxation of the educational qualification was also rejected. The petitioner has also not stated that the same has been granted till date, therefore, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »