Allahabad Court January 2003 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.
Behari S/O Buddhu Murao Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2705
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal the appellant Behari challenges the judgment and order dated 7-10-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1988. convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Laxman Prasad PW 1 is the father the deceased Hanesh Kumar. At the time of the incident the informant, the deceased and All Mohammad PW 2 living in village Bisenda within the limits of police station Manpur district Sitapur. At the said time the appellant, who was also originally a resident of village Bisenda, was living in village Majhigawan, hamlet of Rikhauna, police station Talgaon, district Sitapur.There was enmity between the appellant on one hand and the informant Laxman Prasad and the deceased on the other. On 2-1-1987 the Informant had purchased some land for Rs. 4,500.00 from Banshi alias Masali, the real...
Smt. Sushila Devi Singhania Vs. Cwt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN584(All)
We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Sri A.N. Mahajan has appeared for the department.2. The following question has been referred to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the view that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 4,78,998 representing the notional amount of capital gains tax ?'3. The above question is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . In view of the aforesaid judgment the question is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee....
Syed Vequar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Excise Departme ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC915; (2003)1UPLBEC677
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard counsel for parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing that he be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Commissioner. The petitioner is presently Excise Inspector. He was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission in 1985 and had been working since then. 12 posts of Assistant Excise Commissioner fell vacant in December, 2000, which were to be filled in by promotion from Excise Inspectors. The petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition requesting for promotion. He was awarded special entry for the calendar years 1990-91 and 1991-92.3. However, he was not considered for promotion because he was awarded adverse entries for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Against the adverse entry for the year 1994-95 vide Annexure 4 the petitioner filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 15315 of 1996 which is pending in this Court and the impugned adverse entry has been stayed vide order dated 1....
Ram Jeet Yadav Vs. Transport Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1160
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is registeredowner of a truck, which operates in the States of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, U.P. and Orissa on the basis of a national permit granted under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He holds an authorisation certificate granted by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal for 5 States including U. P. vide Annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is stated that when his vehicle entered U.P. his bank draft was not accepted at the check post and his vehicle was seized on 9.7.2001, although his bank draft of Rs. 5,000 has been accepted by the A.R.T.O., Varanasi. He applied for release of his vehicle stating that his bank draft has been accepted, but respondents 2 and 3 directed him to pay 10 times penalty. Against the order dated 18.7.2001 he filed Writ Petition No. 906 of 2001, and this Court directed that the matter be re-heard vide orderdat...
Ravi Kumar Vashistha Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1168
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ. 1. The petitioner is challenging the recovery of entertainment tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only one of the 4 partners of the firm M/S. National Cable Network against which recovery has been issued whereas his share is only 48.7%. He prays that only 48.7% of the entertainment tax due should be recovered from the petitioner.2. Under Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 every partner is liable jointly as well as severally for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Hence, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The petition is dismissed....
Miss Sunita Sharma and anr. Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1172
R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri V.C. Misra, learned senior Advocate with Sri Vikrant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. In this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari calling the respondents to produce the record of the case and to quash the impugned orders dated 7.3.1998 and 19.3.1998 (Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the respondent No. 1 disapproved the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as a Lecturer in Biology made on short-term vacancy on the ground that vide Government Order dated 30.7.1991. there has been a total ban on the appointment and further the Director of Education vide his letter dated 31.8.1991 has directed that no final approval be accorded to any appointment made in Intermediate College. Similarly the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade was also disapproved on the aforesaid ground vide order dat...
Sanjay Yadav Vs. Passenger Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1175
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ. 1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the recovery proceedings, but has prayed only for fixing instalments. 3. A writ of certiorart is issued only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A writ cannot be issued merely for fixing instalments. Fixing of instalments is really rescheduling the recovery which cannot be done by this Court unless there is some error of law. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution has several limitations in issuing writs and the Court must act within those limitations. 4. The petition is dismissed. ...
Daya Ram Chaudhari Vs. A.K. Ravi, Civil Judge (Sd) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1176; (2003)2UPLBEC1130
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Basti, elected on 10.8.2000. The petitioner is challenging an order adjourning the meeting for no-confidence (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). By that order, the meeting for no-confidence has been fixed on 5.2.2003 at 11.00 a.m. by the Presiding Officer Sri A.K. Ravi, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the adjournment amounts to violation of Section 28 (4B) and (12) of the U. P. Kshetriya Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. He has also submitted that in view of subsection (12) of Section 28, the no-confidence motion should be held to have been dropped and cannot be tabled again for a period of one year.4. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well-settled that in a writ, the petitioner has not only to show violation of law, but he...
Atique Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3431
R.K. Dash, J. 1. Factual aspects of all these cases being almost similar, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For better appreciation, we would refer to the allegations made in the F.I.R. on the basis of which case crime No. 412 of 2002 has been registered at Dhoomanganj P.S., District Allahabad. Smt. Geeta Singh, Trade Tax Officer, Sector-IV, Allahabad lodged the report alleging that in the year 1993-94 M/s. Atique Enterprises, Kasari Masari, Allahabad lifted scrap iron weighing 110 Mt. Tons from Subedarganj Depot of Northern Railway on depositing rupees 72,600/- as earnest money without getting the said firm registered in the State Trade Tax department. On this allegation; she moved the police and prayed for taking appropriate legal action and on her complaint, the aforementioned case was registered against the persons named therein under Section 420, I.P.C.3. The petitioner, by filing the present petition, has sought for quashing of the i...
Sahngoo Ram Arya Vs. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and Rural ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC830
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Services, U. P., in accordance with the relevant service rules and for quashing the impugned order dated 19.7.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were promoted as Superintending Engineer without considering the claim of the petitioner.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, U. P., on 16.12.1980 and was promoted as Executive Engineer vide order dated 11.9.1989. It is alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that he made several representations thereafter claiming further promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in U. P. Service of Engineers (Minor Irrigation Department) Rules, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »