Allahabad Court September 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.
Panipat Indore Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC262(All)
R.B. Misra, J.These trade tax revisions have been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called 'the Act' hereinafter) against the order dated February 15, 2002, passed in Second Appeal No. 75 of 2002 (2001-2002) under Section 13-A(6) of 'the Act'. The revision No. 141 of 2002 has been preferred by the applicant/revisionist whereas the Revision No. 122 of 2002 has been preferred by Commissioner of Trade Tax. The Second Appeal No. 75 of 2002 passed by order dated February 15, 2002 has partly been allowed and the order dated December 18, 2001 was modified and the seizure of the goods was reaffirmed.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist (M/s. Panipat Indore Transport Co.) in Trade Tax Revision No. 141 of 2002 and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant/revisionist (Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow) in Trade Tax Revision No. 122 of 2002.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the ...
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. New Brij Sudh Deshi Ghee Store
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC572(All)
R.B. Misra, J. 1. The present revision No. 499 of 1999 preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (in short, called 'the Act' hereinafter) against the order dated May 11, 1999 in Appeal Nos. 339/96 (1992-93) (U.P.), 340/96 (1992-93) (Central) as well as Trade Tax Revision No. 502 of 1999 preferred against the Second Appeal No. 218/96 (1992-93) (U.P.). The assessing officer levied the trade tax of Rs. 11,25,000 which was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner by its order dated May 23, 1996 and the case was remanded for fresh assessment, against which the Commissioner of Trade Tax preferred second appeal before learned Tribunal which by order dated May 11, 1999 allowed the appeal of the dealer and annulled the order of Trade Tax Officer and the assessee was declared non-taxable, for the year 1992-93 (U.P.).2. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant/Commissioner of Trade Tax/Revenue as well as Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party-res...
Vijay Bihari Srivastava Vs. U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC1
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. The facts, inter alia, before the Division Bench, in short compass, are that Vijay Behari Srivastava, the writ petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Limited on 25.6/9.7.1988 in pursuance of resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Limited. The said decision of the Committee of Management was approved by the Annual General Body Meeting of the said Society on 29.6.1990. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Secretary in the said Bank on 1.7.1990, but on 3.2.1994, he was directed to hand over the charge of the post of Secretary to another person and was reverted to the post of Accountant. Being aggrieved against the said order the petitioner moved the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :(i) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to al...
Anurag Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2002All370
ORDERAshok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.D. Kautilya for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava for respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel,2. Counsels for both the parties have prayed that the writ petition itself be finally decided, counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's admission form for U.P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2001 and permit the petitioner to compete at par with all other students who have passed their MBBS examination from State Medical Colleges. Another prayer has been made praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to compete for admission in U.P. Post Graduate Medical E...
Satya Pal Singh and ors. Vs. M.A.C.T./F.T.C., Iind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC4; 2003ACJ337; 2003(3)AWC1912
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri Y.K. Sinha counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.8.2002 and entire proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 71 of 2001 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/F.T.C., 2nd, Saharanpur. 3. The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are : 'Pawan Kumar, son of respondent No. 2 died on 2.5.1992. An application for compensation in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed on 19.4.2001. Written statement was filed by the petitioner in which plea was taken that application having been filed after nine years of the alleged accident, is not maintainable as being barred by limitation. Issues were framed by the Tribunal including Issue No. 4 as to whether the application is time barred. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.2002 held that the application is not barred by time. The order dated 24.8.2002 has been challenged in this writ petiti...
Balvir Singh Vs. Commissioner, State Election Commission, (Panchayat a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC31
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla for petitioner, and Sri Aditya Narain for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. A counter-affidavit of Shivakant Bajpayee, Assistant Law Officer, State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.3. Petitioner was appointed by State Election Commission, U.P. on 29.7.2002, for elections of Panchayat/Local Bodies by way of local arrangement for a period of six months before regular appointment on a fixed salary of Rs. 3,600/-, on contract, in the Election Office at Firozabad, on the post of Typist/Clerk from the date of joining. It was provided in the order that his services can be terminated at any time before prior notice and even before the expiry of period of contract. He accepted the appointment on the terms and conditions given in the order and joined on 31.7.2000. His appointment was, subsequently, e...
Gyan Singh and ors. Vs. Allahabad University Through Its Registrar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC477
S.K. Singh, J.1. These are two petitions on the same controversy and therefore, they arc being taken up together. For the purpose of convenience Writ Petition No. 25417 of 2002 filed by Gyan Singh and another is being taken up as leading case. Other writ petition is Writ Petition No. 17573 of 2002 filed by Neelima Srivastava and others in which counter and rejoinder affidavit has also been exchanged. Counsel in both the cases on rival sides are the same. As the pleadings are complete for the disposal of the writ petitions, as requested by the learned Counsel, the matter is being heard and is being finally decided.2. Learned Counsel Sri Ajit Kumar who appears for the petitioner, Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Advocate who appears for the University and Sri Vinay Saran who appears for the National Council of Teachers Education have been heard.3. By means of the writ petition filed by Gyan Singh and another which is Writ Petition No. 25417 of 2002 prayer has been made for quashing of the order ...
Priyanka Singh Vs. Matambar Tewari, Director, Ugat-2002, Allahabad Uni ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC483
S.K. Singh, J.1. Prayer in this petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order of the respondents dated 1.8.2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), by which claim of the petitioner for admission in B.A. Part I under the Freedom Fighter quota has been rejected.2. The fact as has come on the record can be summarised thus-For taking admission in various Graduation courses Allahabad University, hereinafter referred to as the University, conducted Under-graduate Admission Test, 2002. A brochure was also published mentioning various requirements and criteria which was to be adhered in the aforesaid test. A bridge Admission Rules was also published, copy of which has been brought on record alongwith counter affidavit. Petitioner claims to have appeared in the aforesaid test for taking admission in B.A. Part I as General candidate under Freedom Fighter quota. Petitioner secured 92 marks but she was not given admission. Petitioner earlier also came to thi...
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Bhikkhoo Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC577
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The compensation was awarded to the opposite party No. 1 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 60/70/94 by order dated 27.7.1999 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The revisionist was dissatisfied with the amount awarded and therefore, preferred First Appeal No. 1000 of 1999. It was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court and on the stay application, the following order was passed on 17.11.1999 :'Issue notice.The operation of the award dated 27.7.1999 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in L.A.R. No. 60/70 of 1994 shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposit 50% of the decreetal amount within three months. 50% of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be given to the respondent without furnishing any security and the remaining 50% shall be given to the respondents on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.'2. The submission of the revisionist is that the amount was deposited in acco...
Smt. Vidya Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All1; MANU/UP/0914/2002
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. In the writ petition No. 1025 of 2001 (Tax) and in all the connected writ petitions, common questions of facts and law are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (Tax) is being treated as the leading case, and the final decision in all other connected writ petitions will be governed by the decision in this writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001(Tax)). 2. The writ petitioners are stage carriage operators. The petitioners are challenging the validity of amendment in Section 6 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby Section 6(1-A), has been added to it on the grounds that (a) the State Legislature is not competent to make this enactment; (b) the amendment is repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the Act; (c) assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India has not been obtained; and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »