Allahabad Court December 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.
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC576
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the contesting respondent.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father died during the service tenure on 14.5.2002 and he has applied immediately thereafter for an appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, but his application has been rejected by the order impugned in the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrate that according to the G.O. dated 6.12.1973, read with G.O. dated 20.1.1999, in case any of the family members of the deceased is already in the employment of the categories specified in the G.O. aforesaid, then further incumbent is not entitled for the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules and that is why the application of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to reply the statement that his mothe...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gyan Prakash Jindal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC595
S.P. Srivastava, J.Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer/appellant.1. The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 3,73,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the untimely death of Sri Ashish Jindal, aged about 18 years in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a Maruti bearing registration No. U.H.P. 5858 insured by the appellant.2. The claimants had come up with a case that on 23.3.1998 when Sri Ashish Jindal was going to Khatauli sitting in the said car it collided with a tree in which Sri Ashish Jindal sustained serious injuries and after accident he was hospitalized in Medical College, Meerut where he died in the same night. The claimants had further come up with a claim that the deceased Sri Ashish Jindal was a precocious student of M.B.B.S. 1st year. He had a bright future.3. The learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by...
Cit Vs. Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN603(All)
Heard counsel for the parties.2. This reference has been made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for our opinion on the following question of law :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the objects of the assessee-society the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the receipts from its members by way of interest ?'The facts of this case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri (2002) 125 (All).3. Following the said decision the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the department....
ZiauddIn Vs. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC5
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filled against the impugned order dated 14.5.2002 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandpur, Bijnor in its meeting held on 18.3.2002 decided to hold auction for giving various contracts. The advertisement for the auction was published in the newspaper 'Bijnor Times' and also announced by loudspeaker. Photocopy of the auction notice is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.4. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that on 26.3.2002 all auctions were held but as far as the auction of the right to collect Tehbazari is concerned, it appears that no auction was held on the basis of the said advertisement or any other advertisement. Hence, the matter was referred to the Nagar Palika Parishad which in its meeting held on 30.3.2002 considered the report of the auctioning officer and scrutinized the various applications and accepted...
Gaon Sabha and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (C.R.O.) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC269
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.11.1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2, Jagdamba filed an objection under Section 9A of the Act claiming bhumidhari rights in the land comprising in Plot No. 261 measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas. The Consolidation Officer allowed his objection vide order dated 26.4.1977. The petitioners thereafter challenged the validity of the said order and filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal by his judgment and orde...
Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC272
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.8.2002, addressed to Ram Veer Upadhyaya, Energy Minister, U. P. Government pursuant to the direction dated 13.10.2002. Issued by the said Minister. The said Minister issued a direction to appoint the petitioner on a particular post. Needless to say that this will be an appointment contrary to the rules. Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus. A mandamus can only be issued if the petitioner has an enforceable right and respondents are under legal obligation. None of the two ingredients are there for issuance of mandamus.2. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit....
Latoori Singh Vs. Chairman, Aligarh GramIn Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC7
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Denial of assistance of a law assistant to represent and defend the petitioner in the departmental enquiry has been the causative factor for knocking the door of this Court by means of the present petition. The petition on hand has been instituted for the relief of certiorari quashing the whole enquiry proceedings including charge-sheet contained in Annexures-5, 7 and 10 to the writ petition and the second relief, ostensibly as an alternative, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to allow the petitioner to appoint an independent defence representative (Sri R. P. Singh a Special Officer of Central Bank of India). Besides the above reliefs, the petitioner has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs.2. The petitioner claims to be a non-gazetted officer. The precise indictment against the petitioner as contained in the charge-sheet is that he remained posted as Manager at Ladpur Branch and also at Khair Branch of the Bank and while posted as Manager at...
Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)510; [2003]259ITR625(All)
1. Heard Sri R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri A.N. Mahajan, for the Department.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 31, 2000. The case relates to penalty under Section 273(2)(a) of the Act for allegedly furnishing a false estimate of advance tax.3. Only one point has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that before issuing notice for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 273(2)(a) of the Act the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) .4. In the aforesaid decision the Delhi High Court has observed that 'it is the assessing authority who has to form his own opinion and record his satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings'.5. With profound respect to the Del...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC505; [2003(96)FLR333]; (2003)ILLJ947All
ORDERYatindra Singh, J.1. Petitioner filed a case, namely, O.A. No. 2229 of 1998 before Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) New Delhi (the CAT) for the relief that he may be granted salary from 2.1.1998 to 20.10.1998 and for grant of temporary status under the DOPT scheme dated 10.9.1993. It was alleged in that application that the petitioner was forced to work as casual labour in the name of some body else. The CAT decided this OA on 9.12.1999. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was involved in doubtful activities. However, a direction was issued to investigate the matter at higher level and it was further directed that in case the report was in favour of applicant, then he would be reengaged. The inquiry of higher level was conducted and a report was madeon 12.5.2000 and in view of the report, the petitioner was not reengaged. The petitioner filed a contempt application with the CAT alleging that its direction dated 9.12.1999 had not been obeyed. This contempt applic...
Ram Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC505b
ORDERS.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Kushwaha, learned advocate who appeared for the private respondent.2. Challenge before this Court is the decision/orders passed by the three revenue authorities, i.e., Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the petitioner's name in the mutation side in proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act stands rejected. It appears that the Tehsildar has accepted the claim of the petitioner and directed for mutation of his name which was passed on the basis of adoption. When the matter was taken up by the opposite party to the next higher forum, it has been held by the three Courts referred above while rejecting the petitioner's claim that the adoption deed as is being claimed by the petitioner is not valid and is not approved and they preferred to rely upon the Will deed upon which the respondents laid their claim.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »