Allahabad Court August 2001 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagat Ram Jai Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR741(All); [2001]119TAXMAN297(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for opinion to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that on the actual cost of the building given to Shri O. N. Mahendra, manager, solely for his residence, the assessee was entitled to the claim of initial depreciation ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent-assessee is a registered firm constituted by Shri Ram Nath Mahendra, Shri Kailash Nath Mahendra, Shri Nirankar Nath Mahendra, Shri Prem Nath Mahendra and the minor sons of Shri Onkar Nath Mahendra, Master Rahul Mahendra and Master Pankaj Mahendra, admitted to the benefits of partnership. The reference relates to t...
Pratap NaraIn Gupta, Advocate Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC350; (2002)1UPLBEC569
Ashish N. Trivedi and R.D. Shukla, JJ.1. The petitioner has challenged the office order dated 14.8.2001 issued by the Registrar, State Public Services inviting applications from advocates who have put in five years of practice at the Bar till 1.7.2001.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Rule 66 of the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1997, the prescription of 5 years practice as an essentialqualification for consideration for appointment as Oath Commissioner, is Illegal, as no such qualification has been mentioned in Rule 66 of the aforesaid Rules.3. Rule 66 (a) of the aforesaid Rules is being reproduced hereunder :'66. Appointment of Oath Commissioner.--(a) Chairman may from time to time appoint such person as may be considered Jit to be Oath Commissioner for a period of one year, commencing from the date of their appointment,'4. It is true that no such qualification has been prescribed in Rule 66 of the aforesaid Rules...
Hafiz Afzal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ141
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri. P. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Union of India.2. As contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, 'B' warrant (production or transit warrant) was served upon the applicant for the present offence during his incarceration in District Jail, Howrah (West Bengal) where he was confined in an offence of the same nature. His detention, therefore, in the present offence will be deemed from the date of service of the production warrant. The applicant was never produced in Court in the present case and no remand was obtained. In a nutshell his contention is that the detention of the applicant and his custody in the present case is illegal in the absence of any order of remand. There is no legal sanction behind his confinement in jail in the present offence. He drew my attention to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 57, Cr. P.C. and Section 167(1), Cr. P.C. in support of his...
Amar Pal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ290
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. Appellants Amar Pal, Hori Lal and Kail Charan preferred Crl. Appeal No.2600 of 1999 against the judgment and order dated 4-9-1999 passed by Sri Surendra Kumar, Special Judge (E.C. Act) Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.346 of 1990 convicting all of them under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148 and 201 I.P.C. and sentencing them to the extreme penalty of death sentence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. R. 1 for a period of two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and R. 1 for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 201 I.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made reference for confirmation of death sentence to above appellants.2. Appellants Bhopal, Ram Nath, Deo Singh, Phool Sahai and Genda Lal preferred Criminal Appeal No.2935 of 1999 against the said judgment and order in above Sessions Trial Convicting them under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C, 148 and 201 I.P.C. and sentancing them to impris...
Santosh Kumar and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ301
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The above three appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-10-1999 passed by Sri Indra Bahadur Singh, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1996 convicting the appellants Manoj Kumar Gupta and Santosh Kumar under Sections 376 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life under Section 376, I.P.C. and to death penalty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicting appellants Kanhaiya Lal and Rajesh alias Raju under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made references for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellants Santosh Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under:--Jeo Bodh Lal Srivastava (P.W. 1) was residing in mohalla Rampur, P. S. Ramnagar, district Varanasi along with his wife Smt. Shash...
Sandeep Poddar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC1968
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by two petitioners seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following prayers:(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from holding counseling with effect from 16th July, 2001 inUPSEAT-2001.(ii) A writ order of direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from granting any preference or reservation to the girl students in the matter of assignment of either institution or subject branch or discipline in Engineering course;(iii) Any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case;(iv) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioners.2. The facts as narrated in the writ petition, which raises the controversy, are that the petitioners appeared in Combined Entrance Examination known as U.P. State Engineering Admission Test, 2...
Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002All1; (2001)3UPLBEC1941
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Bench as in its opinion there was conflict of opinion in two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Anupam Sari Centre v. Collector : 1999(1)AWC237 and Lal & Kumar v. State of U.P : AIR1998All156 and also Writ Petition No. 22507 of 1988 (R.K. Brothers v. Collector, Kanpur). 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she is carrying on business of selling and supplying lubricating oil, mobil, grease and break oil in retail and whole-sale basis in the name and style of M/s. Sharda Automobiles Ltd. which is a sole proprietorship concern. In order to meet her capital requirements, the petitioner approached Union Bank of India, Pandeypur Varanasi, for financial assistance, which sanctioned to her a cash credit (Hypothecation) Limit facility up to Rs. 25.000 on June 23, 1992 and the limit was enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs on August 16, 1995. The amount advanced from time to time was repayable with interest @ 1...
Y.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. and ors. Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2688; (2001)3UPLBEC2373
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.1. Heard Mr. V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. V. K. Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. D. K. Tiwari and Pankaj Srivastava, learned advocates for the respondent.2. This special appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge on 26th March, 2001, whereby the learned single Judge entertained an application filed by the respondent writ petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that the order passed by the learned single Judge on 15th March. 2001, has not been complied with by the appellants. By the said order, the learned single Judge has permitted to add the present appellants as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the application under Article 215 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge also directed notice to be issued to the said respondents appellants herein directing them to appear personally before the Court.3. Mr. V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate assisted ...
Arvind Mehrotra Vs. Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2613; [2001(91)FLR1094]; (2001)3UPLBEC2342
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Shri Shesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bharti Sapru appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition has beenfiled by the petitioner praying for awrit, order or direction in the natureof mandamus declaring the provisionsof Standing Order 25 as ultra vires. Afurther prayer has been made prayingfor a writ of certiorari quashing theimpugned order dated 12.5.1995Annexure-7 to the writ petitionterminating the services of thepetitioner.3. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that respondent No. 3 Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. is a registered company under the provisions of Companies Act. 1956. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Sales representative vide order dated 24.8.1972. Petitioner states that looking to his meritorious service, he was given promotion to Officer Grade-III vide letter dated October. 1989. Petitioner states that respondent No. 3 is a company ...
Ram Das Gupta (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Iiird Addl. District Judge, Gor ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2605
Yatindra Singh, J.1. Today, if a tenant of a non-residential building-governed by U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the new Act) -admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or takes a new partner, he is deemed to have ceased to occupy the premises (Section 12 (2) of the new Act). He is also deemed to have sublet the building (Section 25 (2) Explanation (i) of the new Act). The tenant could avoid this consequence only if it is a bona fide transaction (not a mere cover up for Sub-letting) and had made an application in this behalf before the District Magistrate before admission of such partner. In this event, the non-residential building could be allotted to the newly constituted or re-constituted firm (Rule 10 (6) proviso (a) of the new Rules).2. But what is the position if the aforesaid provisions are not applicable? Was it the same, when U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (the old Act) was applicable? ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »