Allahabad Court March 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.
Pramila and ors. Vs. Secretary, Medical Education, U.P. Government and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2143; (2003)2UPLBEC1179
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :'(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement regarding Corrigendum dated3.11.2002 published in Daily Newspaper 'Amar Ujala' by the respondents (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) with all its consequential effects.(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make appointments by way of advertisement dated 2.9.2002 published in Daily Newspapers 'Amar Ujala'.(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances existing in the present case.(iv) Award the costs of this writ petition in favour of the petitioners.'3. A perusal of the advertise...
Rama Shankar Pandey Vs. Director General (Admn.) Medical Health and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2383
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was heard and dismissed by me on 13th March, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to invite counter-affidavit.3. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs :(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.8.1999 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) forthwith. (ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner in paragraph 1 of the writ petition has state...
Jhamman Yadav and ors. (In Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4122
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. Appellants Jhamman Yadav, Radhey Yadav, Nandu and Agardu, having been convicted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life by Sri G.S. Chaube, the then Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 538 of 1982 relating to P. S, Cholapur, District Varanasi, have preferred this appeal.2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that in the wee hours on 9-11-1982, the informant Jitendra Kumar Singh accompanied by his elder brother Surendra Singh and collaterals Paras Singh (P.W. 2) and Babban Singh (P.W. 3) had gone to the pumping set of Ram Dular Kurmi (P.W. 5) of his village to irrigate his field lying to the north of that pumping set at a distance of about 200 steps. At the time of their arrival at the pumping set, the field of one Ram Adhar Singh was being irrigated. Ram Dular at that time was not present there. Jitendra Kumar Singh his deceased brother Surendra Singh, Paras Singh and Babban Singh sat,...
Cit Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN672(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.At the instance of the revenue the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that incurring expenses on boarding and lodging facilities given to auditors and government and semi-government servants visiting the factory did not amount to entertainment and that it should be deemed a necessary expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer disallowed certain expenditures which according to him were in the nature of entertain expenditures, vide order dated 15-11-1979. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the disallowance of entertainment expenses to the extent of Rs. 20,555 is fully justifi...
Ram Saran and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1701
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. The above noted three petitions arise out of the Suit No. 87 of 1975 filed under Section 229B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short 'the Act' by Smt. Rama Devi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 38131 of 1995, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. In all these cases, subject matter of dispute is the same, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, they were, therefore, connected, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that Smt. Rama Devi filed Suit No. 87 of 1975 under Section 229B/209 of the Act for declaration and ejectment against Smt. Gomti Devi, widow of Murari Singh, and others pleading that she was bhumidhar and in possession of the land in dispute, that originally Ram Lal son of Jhandu Singh, brother of her husband, was a tenant of the same. He executed a Will in her favour on 8.7.1965, which was registered on 15.7.1965. I...
Raja Ram Chaudhary Vs. Satya NaraIn Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1709
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This special appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petition is still pending awaiting final decision. 3. The learned single Judge vide the impugned order had directed the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar to ensure that the next most senior teacher in the college is handed over charge of the post of Principal within a week of production of a certified copy of the said order before the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar. 4. It is not disputed that a controversy in regard to the seniority of the present appellant vis-a-vis Satya Narain Gupta, respondent No. 1 is still awaiting adjudication. It is further not disputed that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 20.1.2003 and he is continuing only on extension till the expiry of academic session that is upto 30.6.2003 as envisaged under the Regulations. T...
RukunuddIn Khan Vs. Controller, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1711
Mukteshwar Prasad, J. 1. We have heard Sri M. A. Quadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shahld Masood, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the substitution application as well on the merits of the petition. 2. This petition was filed by Rukunuddin Khan, challenging the order dated 14.6.1995 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) passed by the Controller of the U. P. Sunni, Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect and not to implement the impugned order dated 14.6.1995. The sole petitioner died on 29.4,2001. After the death, his son Sri Nisaruddin Khan has moved this application for substitution, claiming himself, to be mutawalli of the waqf in question through a Will dated 9.4.2001 executed by his father Rukunuddin. He has further claimed himself to be in actual control and management of the waqf in dispute. A photocopy of the Will dated 9.4.2001 was also filed. On the other hand, learned...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Sterling Machine Tools
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC661(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are three revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax Under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the order of Tribunal dated July 27, 1990 relating to assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. A common question of law has been raised in the present revisions which is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold diesel pump sets to be taxable as power driven agricultural implements despite finding of the honourable High Court in this year assessee's case in Sterling Machine Tools v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1979] 43 STC 72; 1978 U.P.T.C. 660 and of the honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Engineering Traders 1990 UPTC 838, that the same was taxable as machinery?'.3. The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of water pump, diesel engine and diesel engine pumping sets. It had been c...
Heera Electrodes Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC290(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This is a revision filed by the applicant under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 against the order of Tribunal dated March 8, 1991 relating to assessment year 1984-85.2. The applicant was a manufacturer of electrode, welding-rods and was also a trader of scrap, iron and steel rods. During the year under consideration, the applicant had entered into a contract on February 28, 1984 with M/s. Gunkar Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., Rampur, for design, manufacture, fabricate and installation of complete machinery and equipment of electrodes plant for Rs. 5,15,000. The claim of the applicant was that the nature of works was works contract and not sale and therefore, the amount received for execution of such contract was not liable to tax. Assessing authority had not accepted the claim of the applicant and treated the agreement as contract for sale and not works contract and accordingly levied tax on the amount of Rs. 5,15,000. Aggrieved by the order of assessing authority, ...
Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1821
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 26,12.2002 and 10.1.2003, Annexures-10 and 12 to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus that he should be considered for promotion as Chief Engineer.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.3. The petitioner is working as Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, U. P. The Service Rules in this connection are the U. P. Rural Engineers (Group A) Service Rules, 1991, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In these rules for appointment as Superintending Engineer, total number of 15 years of service are required which includes six years service as Executive Engineer.4. The petitioner has alleged that throughout his career, he was senior to the respondent No. 3 Uma Shanker. The respondents do not seriously dispute this fact. For selection as Assistant Engineer, and then as Executive Engineer on both occasions, the petitioner was placed higher in the select...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »