Allahabad Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sahara Investment India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)370; [2004]266ITR641(All)
M. Katju J.1. This is an income-tax application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference of the following questions to us for our opinion :'Whether in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the facts as narrated by the Departmental authorities have not been disputed, accepting deposits on loan under various schemes and converting them into income was a regular trading activity of the assessee liable to tax under the Income-tax Act ?Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire deposit received by the assessee was capital receipt when in the terms and conditions of the application form itself, there is a condition that a part of the deposit will be deducted as administrative and process charges if prematurity payment is taken by the depositor ?Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the deposits as of capital nature when in the cases of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar : [1996]222ITR112(SC) ...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Iv an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1226; (2004)2UPLBEC1537
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-employers U. P. Electricity Board have challenged the order dated 10th December, 1997, passed by the Labour Court-IV, U. P, Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 163 of 1996, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the labour court purporting to allow computation of amount for a sum of Rs. 1,44,676 in favour of the workman concerned in exercise of power under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'Act').2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.3. The case set up by the workman-respondent, in short, before the Labour Court is that the aforesaid workman has been retired by the petitioner-employers on an incorrect entry of the date of birth without his actually attaining the age of superannuation. The workman therefore, filed a suit being Suit No. 221 of 1993 before the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar for declaration of his ...
Smt. Chandrakanta Shukla and anr. Vs. Smt. Mahima Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1144
K.S. Rakhra, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order and judgment dated 27.4.2001, passed by XVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 43 of 1993 and order dated 17.5.1993 of the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 passed in P.A. Case No. 73 of 1986 on an application for release of premises under Section 21 (1) (a) of the said Act.2. I have heard Sri B. K. Saxena, advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. K. Tripathi advocate for the respondents.3. The dispute relates to House No. 96/111, Sonarwali Gall, Old Ganeshganj, Lucknow, in which the petitioners are in occupation as tenants in three rooms at the ground floor and one room at the first floor. Admittedly, it is an old tenancy and this building was purchased by the present landlord on 1.7.1983. In the year 1986 an application under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the...
Suresh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR192]; (2004)2UPLBEC1185
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-workman aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court, U.P., Agra dated 15th February, 1997, passed in adjudication case No. 162 of 1993 has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'6' to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication.^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh lqjs'k pUnz] iq= Jh psrjke] ifjpkyd dh lsok;sa vkns'k fnukad 4-11-91 ls lekIrfd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gSa ;fn ugha]rks lEcfU/kr Jfed fdl ykHk mi'ke ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k dslkFk**3. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.4. After receipt of the reference the Labour Court issued notices to both the parties, namely, the employers as well as the concerned workman-petitioner in the present writ petition. Parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence. In short the case set up by the emp...
Smt. Kusum Singh Daughter of Shri Bharat Singh Vs. State of Uttar Prad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2110
Anjani Kumar, J.1. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8thMay, 1985, quoted on the margin of Annexure-'4' to the writ petition, passed by Additional District Magistrate (E), Robertsganj, Mirzapur and the report of Station Officer In-charge of police station Ghorawal, district Mirzapur on the application moved by the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghorawal, Mirzapur.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that he may be permitted to delete Respondents No. 3 and 6, which was granted and the Respondents No. 3 and 6 have been deleted from the array of the parties. Thus, the report regarding service of, notice upon Respondents 3 and 6 is irrelevant, as these two parties have been deleted.3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is Bhumidhar of Plot No. 991, area 3 Biswas, 10 Dhoora, situated in village Ghorawal, Pargana Bara...
Cit Vs. Sahara Investment India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN61(All)
M. Katju, J.This is an income-tax application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking reference of the following questions to us for our opinion :'1. Whether in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the facts as narrated by the departmental authorities have not been disputed, accepting deposits on loan under various schemes and converting them into income was a regular trading activity of the assessee liable to tax under Income Tax Act 2 Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the entire deposit received by the assessee was capital receipt when in the terms and conditions of the application form itself, there is a condition that a part of the deposit will be deducted as Administrative and Process Charges if prematurity payment is taken by the depositor ?3. Whether the ITAT was justified in treating the deposits as of capital nature when in the cases of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar : [1996]222ITR112(SC) and CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. : [1996]220ITR305(SC)...
Sardar Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC456; (2004)1UPLBEC523
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner who has approached to this Court in this petition to quash the order dated 21.8.1996 and 21.12.2000 (Annexures-11 and 12) whereby the petitioner's appointment was declared illegal for non-existence of regular post, without any selection and advertisement for the post of assistant teacher and for not possessing the qualification as required for assistant teacher and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents. It appears that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy which was available after the suspension of the assistant teacher Sri Nathuram Gupta, the petitioner was appointed and was allowed to join, but he was not given salary. Earlier the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4707 of 1996, which was disposed of on 8.2.1996 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequent upon the petitioner's representation was considered and decided b...
Ram Sewak Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC434
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by him against tenants-respondents No. 3 and 4. The property in dispute is a house. Landlord pleaded in the release application that he was residing in a tenanted house and required a house in dispute for his residential need. It was further pleaded that tenants-respondents No. 3 and 4 had their own accommodation available for residence near the building in dispute. Prescribed authority also appointed a Commissioner who submitted his report after inspection. Release application which was registered as case No. 20 of 1978 was allowed on 7.7.1980 by Prescribed Authority/ Judicial Magistrate-II. Etawah. The prescribed authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and balance of hardship also lay in his favour. Tenants filed appeal against the judgment and order of the prescribed authority under Section 22 of the Act, which was reg...
Uma Shanker Vs. Xith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC432
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground of bona fide need. Release application numbered as U.P. U. B. Case No. 18 of 1981, was dismissed by prescribed authority/Munsif, Koil. Aligarh through judgment and order dated 12.12.1983, landlord respondent filed appeal against the said order under Section 22 of the Act being U.P. U.B. Appeal No. 5 of 1984. The appeal was allowed by XIth Additional District Judge. Aligarh, through judgment and order dated 12.2.1993. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment passed by the appellate court.2. The only point argued and required to be decided in this case is as to what would be the effect of dismissal of earlier release application, filed by landlord resp...
Satish Chandra Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC399
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has argued on behalf of the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 contemplates that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.3. In the present case, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such enquiry has been conducted. Whether any such enquiry has been conducted or not, is a question of fact, for which the counter-affidavit is requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »