Allahabad Court March 2002 Judgments
Dr. O.P. Agarwal Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN539(All)
ORDERWe have heard Sri P.M.N. Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General for the assessee and Sri Sri Krishna, the learned counsel for the revenue.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on record, it appears that the plea raised in the instant writ petition is only a circuitous process to delay and avoid payment of taxes and to comply with the order in assessment proceeding. The claim made in the writ petition is that the application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been disposed of by the Commissioner, Bareilly, respondent No. 1. In our view, there is no apparent error on the face of the record, which is required to be considered and, as such, we cannot accept the plea raised by the learned advocate for the assessee.3. There being no merit, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it will be open to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the same is already not time-barred....
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Prasad Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1225
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. This special-appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 19.1.2001 in Writ Petition No. 2354 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the office order notice dated 23.12.2000 retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.1.2001 on attaining the age of 58 years.2. The short question involved in the present appeal is as to whether the age of retirement of Consolidation Lekhpal is 60 years or 58 years?3. We have heard Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel on behalf of the State-respondents. With the permission of the Court, they have also filed their written arguments, which are on record.4. It appears that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal on 11.10.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 330-7-365-8-381-405-9-450 in the district of Basti. It is not in dispute that his date of birth is 10...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1251; [2002(93)FLR689]; (2002)3UPLBEC2376
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel for the petitioner and SriDilip Gupta for the respondent-University.2. The petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the Civil Court, Gorakhpur and he was also appointed as a lecturer on purely ad hoc basis in the Gorakhpur University for a period of 6 months by order dated 5.4.1989. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on the fixed emolument of Rs. 11.000 per month. This amount was subsequently Increased to Rs. 15,000 per month.3. Under Statute 16.24 of the Gorakhpur University, the retirement age of a teacher of the University is 60 years. Statute 16.24 states as follows :'16.24. (1) Subject to the provisions of Statutes 16.25 and 16.26, the age of superannuation of a teacher of the University governed by the new scale of pay shall be sixty years. (2) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University not governed by the new scale of pay shall, subject to Statute 16.25, besixty years. (3) No extension in ser...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1280; [2002(95)FLR501]; (2002)3UPLBEC2528
D.S. Sinha and S.N. Srivastava, JJ. 1. Heard Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. N. Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the State of U. P., representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners, an erstwhile Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department of the State of U. P., urges this Court to Issue mandamus to the respondents directing them to promote him as Assistant Engineer and also to pay his salary and other benefits admissible to Assistant Engineer. 3. Indisputably, the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is regulated by sub-rule (iv) of Rule 5 of the U. P. Service of Engineers Class II, Irrigation Branch Rules, 1936 (as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers Class II, Irrigation Branch (Amendment) Rules, 1988), (hereinafter called the Rules). Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 5 of the Rules Is as under : '5. Sources of Recruitment. --Recruitment to the service shall be made by the Government : (iv) by promotion, on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1472; [2002(93)FLR708]; (2002)IIILLJ108All
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. Heard Shri Someshwari Prasad Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant. Shri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This special appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 1.2.2002 in writ petition, which was filed challenging the suspension order wherein the learned single Judge has held that the inquiry proceeding contemplated shall be concluded within four months and in the event, the proceeding cannot be concluded in spite of the co-operation of the writ petitioner, it will be open to the writ petitioner to apply for revocation of the suspension order.3. Learned senior counsel has argued before us that contemplated inquiry means inquiry must have been initiated and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment and decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. Rajendra Shanker Nigam and Ors. 1974 CAN 263, an...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1518
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, who are the tenant of non-residential accommodation (shop), have challenged the orders dated 7.3.1984 and 10.3.1989, passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority, respectively. Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the landlord-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act' on the ground that the building in which the shop is situated, is In a dilapidated condition, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction. This application was subsequently amended and requirement under Clause 21 (1) (a) of the Act was also aided, i.e., the building in question is bona fide required by the landlord. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority has not accepted the ...
Tag this Judgment!Niraj Agarwal Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1644; (2002)2UPLBEC1145
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Since the Recall-Application No. 6849 of 2002 has been allowed and 1 have recalled my order dated 31.8.2001, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy, the writ petition has been restored to its original number. The writ petition has been heard on merits.2. This writ petition challenging the order dated 14.12.1998. passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. whereby he has refused to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioner. Niraj Agarwal. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under.3. Ramji Das and Nand Lal were recorded tenure holders of the land, which was noticed under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said notification was issued in the year 1975. Ram Ji Das filed Writ Petition No. 590 of 1976 before this Court in the month of January. 1976. The above writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 12.10.1977, whe...
Tag this Judgment!P.N.C. Construction Company Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC476(All)
S.R. Alam, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the notice dated May 9, 2001 issued by the Trade Tax Officer, Sector 14, Agra, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on May 16, 2001 and to file written reply as to why the recognition certificate issued under Sub-section (2), Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be not cancelled.2. We have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 5.3. It appears that the petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and registered under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Acts. It entered into a contract with National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi, for the construction of 4/6 lane of national highways of north, south, east a...
Tag this Judgment!QamruddIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2721
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th April, 1981 passed by Shri S.L. Adarsh, the then Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, this appeal has been preferred by the convict-Qamaruddin.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that some litigations were going on between the first informant and the deceased on one hand and the accused on the other. Another litigation was pending before the consolidation authorities wherein names of accused Qamaruddin and Fakhruddin had been mutated. On account of this enmity the accused persons decided to do away with the deceased Nijamuddin. With this end in view, the present appellant along with three acquitted accused persons. Karim Bux, Fakhruddin and Abdul Hameed in the night between 8th and 9th May, 1979 at about 12.30 reached the place where deceased Nijamuddin was sleeping. According to the prosecution case itself Nijamuddin was sleep...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Pati Yadav and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3646
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 968 of 1999. It is alleged that they have already been enlarged on bail for offence under Sections 323, 324, 504, I.P.C. in this crime. That now the charge sheet have also been submitted under Section 326, I.P.C. the request has been made that the petitioners be permitted to file fresh bail bonds for offence under Section 326, I.P.C.2. I have heard Sri R. N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following decisions :The first case referred to is Naresh v. State of U.P. 2001 (42) All Cri C 502. In this case, the F.I.R. was under Section 354, I.P.C. However, on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, the case was converted under Section 376, I.P.C. In the circumstances, the accused were permitted to continue on the previous bail.The second case referred to is Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U.P. 2002 (1) JIC 21. In this case the Investigati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »