Allahabad Court March 2003 Judgments
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. B.B. Mathur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1691
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika/U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1986 : Smt. Vishnu Mathur v. State of U. P. and Ors., in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. It appears that the State of U. P. acquired certain land in Indira Nagar Extension Schedule vide Notification dated 17.3.1979 under Section 28 and Notification dated 20.5.1980 under Section 32 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @ Rs. 1.88 per sq. ft. while in the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1.88 to Rs. 3 per sq. ft. but the Tribunal did not allow any interest on the amount of solatium.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both th...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2119; [2003(97)FLR1055]; (2003)2UPLBEC1285
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. In all these writ petitions common questions of facts and law are involved. The impugned award of the labour court dated 30.1.1992 has been challenged on various grounds by the State. C.M.W.P. Nos. 21684-87 of 1992 and W. P. No. 32500 of 1992 have been filed challenging the order of reinstatement, while C.M.W.P. No. 21688 of 1992 has been filed against the direction given by the same award for regularization of the services of the workmen. C.M.W.P. No. 16710 of 1999 has been filed by the workmen for seeking direction to the District Collector, Meerut, to make the recovery as per the recovery certificates Issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut, on various dates in execution of the award dated 30.1.1992. The petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that the respondent workmen raised an Industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Baldevji Vs. Xith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All99; 2003(3)AWC2504
A. K. Yog and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate along with Sri Som Narain Mishra, advocate on behalf of the petitioners (tenants) and Sri R. B. Singhal, advocate on behalf of the contesting respondents (landlord).2. Above writ petitions have been listed, before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge. Referring order dated September 10, 2002 is extracted :'I have heard the learned counsel for both sides.Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. as added in U.P. requires that the tenant/defendant should deposit the arrears of rent which is admitted by him to be due with interest at the first hearing. He should also deposit future rent month to month during the pendency of the suit. Failing such deposit the defence in the suit is liable to be struck off.In this particular case, the tenant/petitioner in his written statement has denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant, and therefore, obviously no rent could be said to be admittedly due. He did not deposit a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Mukund Das Nar Singh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC122(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are four revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order of Tribunal dated November 17, 1990 for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. The dealer-opposite party purchased old ornaments and not admitted any liability of tax on the purchases. The assessing authority in the original assessment proceeding passed an order under Rule 41(7) and did not levy any tax on the purchases of old ornaments. Subsequently, a proceeding under Section 21 was initiated on the ground that the old ornament was liable to tax as bullion at the rate of 1 per cent on the point of purchase w.e.f. September 7, 1981, accordingly in the order passed under Section 21 for all the years tax was levied on the purchases of old ornaments at the rate of 1 per cent. Interest under Section 8(1) was also demanded treating the amount of tax assessed under Section 21 of the Act as admitted tax. Dealer filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and challe...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Lalit Bhasin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]45SCL31(All)
N.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is a revision against the order dated 30.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow allowing the application 25A under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The copy of the application for amendment of the plaint of the suit filed by the opposite party is Annexure-S-1 and the objection filed by the defendant-revisionist is Annexure-S-2. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs :'(a) That a decree of permanent Injunction may be passed restraining the defendant from holding its extra-ordinary general meeting in pursuance of the notice dated 18.2.2002 or any other general meeting containing the same or similar resolutions ;(b) That a decree of permanent injunction may be passed restraining the defendant from adopting or passing the resolutions, contained in the notice dated 18.2.2002 convening the said extraordinary general meeting or any other general meeting containing the same and similar resolutions ;(c) T...
Tag this Judgment!Har NaraIn Singh Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1836
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 18th February, 2003, allowing revisions of Sheeshpal and Devendra Singh, contesting opposite parties herein, granting the relief claimed by them for providing nail and chakroad up to the boundary of village Tana considering the, claim of chakholder of chak No. 1002 and other persons.2. The relevant facts are that opposite party No. 2 Devendra Singh is chakholder of chak No. 420, opposite party No. 4 Sheesh Pal is chakholder of chak No. 1002. The petitioner is chakholder of chak No. 1159. Chak Nos. 1002 and various other chaks are situated at the border adjoining village Tana, chakholder of chak No. 1002 and chak No. 420 have raised their grievances before the Consolidation authorities for providing nalt and chakroad but no heed was paid to their request, hence they preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 30.11.1998 in Appeal No....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Durga Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2164
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner is widow of one late Shri Sheil Verma who was an Additional District Judge in U. P. Judicial Service who died in a road accident on 26.6.1994. The petitioner being his widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground and she was appointed as O.S.D. in Legal Cell in the State Law Office at High Court, Allahabad on 16.9.1999. 3. The petitioner is claiming pay parity with one Smt. Laxmi Sharma who is also widow being wife of an Additional District Judge who died in harness and she was also appointed on compassionate ground as O.S.D. in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500. Smt. Laxmi Sharma is presently working in U. P. Civil Secretariat. The petitioner's pay scale is Rs. 6,500 -10,500. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Kant Kadam v. State of U. P., 2001 (2) AWC 1128 (SC) : JT 2001 (3) SC 485. In our opinion, this decision appl...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Chaudhary Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2165; (2003)3UPLBEC2105
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a small controversy the present writ petition has been filed. The facts are not much disputed. The dispute relates to the demand notice dated 6th January, 2003 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as A.D.A.) demanding a sum of Rs. 63.352 as the amount due up to the period 31.12.2000. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that after clearing the aforesaid amount in respect of the house. H.I.G. 25, the sale deed in respect of the said plot may be executed on concessional rate upto 31st March, 2003 otherwise stamp duty on registration shall be payable on circle rate. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be Power of Attorney holder of one Smt. Awadh Kishore Mishra, who was allotted Flat N. 25, Type-II, A.D.A. Colony, Circular Road, Allahabad. Sri Awadh Kishore Mishra had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 at the time of registration. The A.D.A. worked out the balance cost price of the Flat in question at Rs. 3,10,000. The afores...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ88
R.C. Deepak, J.1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists Tulsi S/o Raj Kishor and Vijay Singh S/o Prasiddha Narain R/o Village Adhanpur, Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur against the order dated 7-3-2003 passed by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court IInd, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2001, summoning them under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to stand trial for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 324 and 506, IPC.2. The abovenamed revisionists have filed a copy of First Information Report in the Case Crime No. 97 of 1999, statements of Girja Shanker Singh, Smt. Ram Rati, Smt. Meera Devi, report of the Investigating Officer, copy of the charge-sheet and copy of the application dated 27-2-2003, marked as Annexures 1 to 7 respectively, in support of their revision.3. A perusal of the First Information Report (Annexure 1) shows that the complainant Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Girja Shanker Singh R/o V...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN508(All)
In the Allahabad High Court M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ.By the CourtThis is income-tax reference under section 256(1) of Income Tax Act in which following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether as the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not sustaining the disallowance of repair expenses of a guest house under the provision of section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act?'2. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.1) : [1989]177ITR124(Bom) which has been followed in the decision ins 187 ITR 660; CIT v. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. : [1991]192ITR608(Guj) CIT v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. : [1992]197ITR538(Guj) Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying v. CIT : [1994]208ITR608(Patna) etc.3. We have carefully perused the above decisions and we are in respectful agreement with the same. In view of the above we an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »