Allahabad Court October 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.
Purshottam Sutwala Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]55SCL584(All); (2004)2UPLBEC1828
A.K. Yog and V.N. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This petition, under Article 226, Constitution of India, has been filed by one Purshottam Sutwala who seeks to impugn recovery certificate dated July 23, 2003/Annexure-4 to the writ petition.3. It is not disputed that petitioner is the guarantor in respect of certain loans taken by the company, M/s. Meekan Transmission incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 for manufacturing automatic gears in the factory situate at 19 kms stone, G.T. Road, Bhawanipur, Mandhana, Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner is also the Managing Director of the Company (writ para 3).4. In para 4 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner, Purshottam Sutwala, was sanctioned loan as per terms and conditions contained in the bond/Annexure-1 to the writ petition and (according to the conditions of the Loan Agreement bond) Pradeshiya...
Ran Vijay Chand Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2648
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.N. Misra has appeared for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.8.2003 Annexure 6 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been removed from the membership of the Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Gorakhpur under Section 38 of the U.P. Co-operativeSocieties Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made several submissions e.g. that the impugned order was passed without givingopportunity of hearing, that it was not within the ambit of Section 38 of the Act, etc. 4. However, we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case because the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case under Section 302, IPC and hence this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Even if the petitioner has filed an appeal...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Pramod Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)159
1. In this case there is an office report dt. 27th Feb., 1984 that notice has been served on the assessee. None has appeared on his behalf. Since this is an old reference we are not adjourning the case.2. This is a wealth-tax reference Under Section 27(1) of the WT Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption in terms of Section 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957, in respect of the immovable property of the firm M/s Raj Kamal Talkies for the asst. yr. 1976-77?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building owned by M/s Raj Kamal Talkies could not be added to the value worked out on yield basis for the asst. yr. 1976-77?'3. The first question is covered in favour of the Department by our judgment in WT ...
Prakash Enterprises and Company Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST180(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.The petitioner is a partnership firm. It has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated June 5, 1992 rejecting the review application under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. The petitioner established a new unit in pursuance of the Government order dated September 30, 1992 for the manufacture of polythene bags.3. In pursuance of the partnership deed dated June 2, 1987 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) Atul Prakash, one of the partners, was authorised to represent the firm in all the offices and also to get or procure loans from any financial institution or bank, as the case may be.4. The petitioner applied for a term loan from Syndicate Bank which was duly sanctioned to the petitioner through Shri Atul Prakash.5. The petitioner was granted registration as a small-scale industrial unit for which the application was filed on December 13,1988 (vide annexure 3 to the writ petition).6. In the registr...
Cwt Vs. Pramod Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN305(All)
ORDERIn this case there is an office report dated 27-2-1984 that notice has been served on the assessee. None has appeared on his behalf. Since this is an old reference we are not adjourning the case.2. This is a wealth tax reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption in terms of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of the immovable property of the firm M/s. Raj Kamal Talkies for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building owned by M/s. Raj Kamal Talkies could not be added to the value worked out on yield basis for the assessment year 1976-77 ?3. The first question is covered in favour of the departmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›