Allahabad Court January 2002 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.
Cwt Vs. Smt. Nirmala Rani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN582(All)
ORDERIn this case the following question has been sought to be answered :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the valuation of the property for the above assessment year should be done in the light of rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, read with section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1977 ?'2. The assessee was having one-fourth and one-third share, respectively, in the land and building situated at 2/1/1B, Bright Street, Calcutta. In the original return for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 the assessee had shown the total value as Rs. 90,605 which was revised to Rs. 1,27,439 in the revised return. She claimed exemption of Rs. 1 lakh from the wealth-tax. The Wealth Tax Officer referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, Calcutta who valued the entire property at Rs. 10,21,000. The Wealth Tax Officer accordingly adopted the one-fourth share of the land valued at Rs. 2,58,000 at Rs. 64,500 and one-third share...
K.K. Kamani Vs. Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC520; (2002)2UPLBEC1130
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant for the respondent.2. Sri Ravi Kant raised a preliminary objection that this writ is not maintainable as the respondent No. 1 is a private body and is not an Instrumentality of the State. We agree with this preliminary objection. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is a purely private body. Ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. We are of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 is not an instrumentality of the State and hence no writ petition lies against it. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Vijay Narayan Ojha, 2001 (2) AWC 1071 : 2001 (43) ALR 276. In our opinion, this decision is clearly distinguishable. No doubt in some exceptional cases, a writ lies againsta private body on which some public duty has been imposed by the statute. In our opinion, the respondent No. 1 is not performing any public duty. ...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Hari Shankar Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC553; (2002)1UPLBEC790
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. We have heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned standing counsel for the State Applicants and Sri V.K. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent-writ petitioner on the delay condonation petition.2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 225 days in preferring special appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition. The order was passed in the writ petition on 28th August, 2000. No material has been disclosed nor any fact has been alleged on the basis of which we can come forward to give any aid to the State Government to condone the delay. The order was passed on 28th August, 2000 and the limitation for filing the special appeal expired on 27th September, 2000. The only fact, disclosed in the delay condonationpetition, is that permission was sought from the State Law Department on 14th March, 2001. What is the reason for seeking such permission after such a long time has also not been disclosed. It also appears that the Law...
Lily Chemicals (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC605; [2002]110CompCas419(All); (2002)1UPLBEC502
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shasht Nandan as well as Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4, Canara Bank, Saharanpur Road Branch, Dehradun, who is only contesting respondent. The respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3 are formal parties.2. Although the present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I propose to decide it on merits at admission stage.3. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that respondent No. 1 has committed manifest error of law in holding that against an order setting aside ex parte decree and restoring original application to its original number, no appeal is maintainable asorder falls within the purview of interlocutory order.4. Brief resume of facts leadin...
Shahjahan Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC598; [2002(93)FLR147]; (2002)1UPLBEC902
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 31.7.2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and the order dated 8.7.1988 (Annexure-8 to the petition) and the order dated 30.9.1989 (Annexure-10 to the petition).2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Uttar Pradesh on 14.2.1977. It is alleged that his work and conduct was good and there was no adverse entry against him. On 21.9.1985, the petitioner was suspended and a chargesheet served on him on 21.3.1987 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioner sent a reply (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition). Thereafter an enquiry was held and after show cause notice, he was dismissed on 1.7.1988 vide Annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 30.8.1989, vide Annexure-10 to the petition. The petitioner then went to the Tribunal, which rejected his claim petition. Hence, this writ petition.3. A large number of points have...
H.N. Singh Vs. Chairman, U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC810; [2002(95)FLR355]; (2002)1UPLBEC754
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been fied against the resolution of the Board of Directors of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. dated 11.7.1997, Annexure-14 to the petition by which the post of Joint Managing Director in the Corporation has been abolished. The petitioner has also prayed for a certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15.7.1997 dispensing with the services of the petitioner as Joint Managing Director.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Corporation is wholly owned and managed by the State Government and it is also registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is managed and controlled by a Board of Directors of which the Chairman and Managing Director is an I.A.S. Officer. The corporation owns several spinning mills in the State.3. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Joint Managing Director of the Corporation vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In para 15 of the petition it is alleged that the official lobby did not relish and deve...
WahajuddIn Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC833
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Sharma counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.D. Tripathi appearing for respondent No. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 to which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. Although notices were issued to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by registered post but neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover received back after service hence the service is deemed sufficient against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Counsel for both the parties have agreed that the case be finally disposed of.2. The facts of the case as disclosed in pleadings of the parties are that the Khasra No. 472 area 7 Bishwa 10 Blshwansl situate inKasba Chandpur, tahsil and district Bijnore was recorded as 'rasta'. The Sub-Divisional Officer recommended for allotting 450 square yards land to respondent No. 3 which proposal was approved by the Collector. Bijnore and consequently plot No. 472 area 7 Bishwa 10 Bishwansl was allotted to respondent No...
Dharmendra Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC857; (2002)2UPLBEC1411
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the U.P. Public Service Commission to forward the names from the select list/waiting list to the State Government prepared on the basis of the combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination. 1994, for filling up the vacancies in different departments remaining unfilled on account of non-joining of the candidates recommended for the said post, as also the vacancies against which the recommended candidates had joined but had left employment within a period of one year. It has also been prayed that the State Government be directed to grant appointments on the basis of the aforesaid recommendations.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. It appears that the U.P. Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement in 1994 in respect of the above posts and the petitioners had applied. The petitioners were declared successful in the preliminary test and thereafter they appeared in the main writ...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court Iv, U.P., Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC985; [2002(93)FLR202]; (2002)IIILLJ63All; (2002)2UPLBEC1036
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award dated 20.3.1996, passed by Labour Court IV, U. P., Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 142 of 1993, Annexure-16 to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide Its order dated 10.8.1983 referred the following dispute under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, for adjudication before the Labour Court IV, U. P., Kanpur, the respondent No. 1 in the present petition :'Whether the termination of the services of Sri Slpahl Lal, son of Sri Munshi Lal, Binta Weaver (workman) w.e.f. 31.3.1992 by the employer was valid and legal? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman was entitled for etc.?'3. It is submitted that the employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their written statements and adduced their evidences and argued the matter before the labour court. In the written statement of the workman, i...
U.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1095; [2002(93)FLR416]; (2002)2UPLBEC1127
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tarun Agarwal and Shri Shyam Narain, appearing for the concerned workman. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the interim award dated 6.9.1987 given by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court. Gorakhpur, in Adjudication Case No. 137 of 1982. The State Government referred the following dispute to the labour court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication. 'Whether the termination of the workman Sri Awadesh Prasad Pandey by the employers w.e.f. 3.7.1980 was valid or not? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?' 3. Under Section 4 (k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the labour court while adjudicating upon for answering the aforesaid reference in reply to the application made by the employers that in case, the labour court comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper, the employers may be afforded anopportunity to lead the evidence before the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »