Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1012
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. One of the questions which has arisen in the writ petition is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') can directly hear the revision against an order passed under Section 9A of the Act. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner Sri R. N. Singh is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no Jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 48 of the Act directly against the order passed under Section 9A. He has submitted that there is provision of appeal under Section 11 of the Act, hence revision can neither be filed nor can be entertained by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In support of his submission the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions :(1) Damodar Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad and others, 1996 AWC (Suppl) 158 ; 1995 RD 534.(2) Santos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)83ITD443(All.)
1. The Revenue has filed ITA No. 207/All/1996 against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 16th Oct., 1995, for asst. yr. 1984-85 against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and has raised the following ground : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 5,10,000 under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO, without appreciating that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in respect of amount of Rs. 7,82,728 written off under the head flood/fire rescue account and made wrong claim of depreciation on boiler amounting to Rs. 55,841 and these two additions have been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as per order dt. 24th Aug., 1995, and the assessee has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Department's view is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Finance Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 67...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(1)AWC751
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.2. Without delineating the facts in detail the present writ petition deserves to be allowed on the admitted facts between the parties.3. Indisputably, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Agra Division, Agra. While admitting the appeal, the Divisional Commissioner. Agra Division. Agra, had granted an ad-interim stay order on 17.4.2001 holding that the lease of the petitioners is valid up to 2.7.2002, therefore, they are entitled to extract sand from the land in dispute till their lease is valid. The aforesaid ad-interim stay order was granted by appellate authority after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides. Subsequently, on 22.1.2002 the appellate authority instead of deciding the appeal on merits, vacated the ad-interim stay order dated 17.4,2001 reducing the period of entitlement of petitioners to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1103
A. K. Yog, J. 1. Heard Sri R. P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri Pankaj Mithal learned counsel appearing for the caveator-applicant respondent No. 2 landlord. 2. The date chart annexed with the petition shows that Vipin Prakash Agarwal owner of the building in question within the municipal limit of the city of Bulandshahr was the owner and the accommodation in question was assessed for the first time on 1.4.1970 (as is evident from the impugned order that there is nosuch assessment on record to fix the day and month of the year 1970). The petitioner contends that he occupied the accommodation in question as tenant with an agreement and consent of the erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal. 3. The said owner, however, sold the property consisting of the accommodation in question on 28.8.1999. The petitioner further contends that erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal continuously accepted the rent, but the subsequent purchaser (present landlord respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2905
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 12.5.2000 and 24.8.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad respectively. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Complaint of Case No. 3386 of 1997, Dabur India Ltd. v. B.S.I. Ltd. and Ors., and entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the said complaint, which are pending before I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.2. The Court has heard Mr. P.K. Sinha for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and S/Sri D.S. Tiwari, H.N. Mehrotra and Shankar Suan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.3. The relevant facts are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for proceeding against them under Section 420, I.P.C. and Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act. After recording statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2065
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Sri J. Lal has appeared for the Union of India.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 15-6-2001 passed under the National Security Act. Several points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner but we are of the opinion that the very first point is sufficient to allow this petition.3. The grounds of detention alleged that on 25-5-2001 at about 10.15 a.m. the petitioner and some of his associates who are Muslims attacked one Banwari Giri who is a Hindu with lathis and dandas. One Ram Sahai tried to intervene and he was shot dead by a pistol and this created terror in the area. In our opinion, this is a clear case of law and order and not of public order. No doubt the petitioner and his associates can be proceeded against under the ordinary criminal law but we are of the opinion that it is not a case of public order and hence the detention order is invalid vide T. Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC911
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27. C.P.C. 82C and List 83A filed by the petitioner have been rejected by the appellate court.2. Petitioner in his application has not given reasons for not filing the evidence during the trial and has not given reason to the satisfaction of the appellate court for not filing the same before the trial court. The respondents have filed their objection to the said application wherein they have stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioners along with their application is wholly false and this application filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLl, Rule 27 due to which the documents filed along with this application 82C are not worthy to be accepted as additional evidence. The appellate court has arrived at the conclusion that the filing of the additional evidence are not such which may attract the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1067
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the revocation of his firearm licence by the licensing authority with regard to his DBBL gun No. 5739, has approached this Court after approaching the appellate authority who endorsed the order passed by the licensing authority. The licensing authority by order dated 16.4.1992 cancelled the petitioner's fire-arm licence after issuing the shuw cause notice to the petitioner on prima facie two grounds ; that the petitioner had been subjected to 16 criminal cases which all resulted into acquittal of the petitioner and Anr., person is facing trial in Case Crime No. 25 of 1991 under Section 307, I.P.C., and on the basis of the aforesaid ground, the licensing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner Bhanu Pratap Singh is a man of dacoity spirit and against whom 16 cases were pending and after acquittal he again involved in his dacoity activities. Recently he is involved in Case Crime No. 25 of 1991. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1027; (2002)1UPLBEC699
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. The question involved in this case is, 'whether the practice of merely communicating the operative portion of an order and not the complete orders along with reasons (If any) is justified in law.'The Facts and the Decision 2. The petitioner was class four employee in Ghaziabad Judgeship. He was dismissed from service on 18.8.2000. He filed an appeal under Rule 7 of the U. P. Court Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976 (The Rules). This appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Judge. The petitioner was informed about dismissal of his appeal by the letter dated 6.8.2001. Hence, the present writ petition.3. I have heard Sri R. K. Srivastava counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The letter dated 6.8.2001 merely informs the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed but neither the reasons for the order are disclosed, nor the reasoned order has been sent along with the letter. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC910b
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is a licensee/allottee of the fair price shop for the purposes of distribution of items reserved under the Public Distribution System. His allotment of shop has been cancelled by the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 17th September, 1995, which has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilthara Road, district Ballia, by his order dated 26th September, 1995. This order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been passed after giving show cause notice to the petitioner.Against the order dated 26th September. 1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, by his order dated 2nd January, 1998, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. After dismissing the said appeal, the grounds sought were that the appeal is barred by time and consequent o...
Tag this Judgment!