Allahabad Court April 2003 Judgments
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1378
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-employer have questioned the award dated 30th May, 1996/1st June, 1996, passed by the Labour Court-IV, U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 38 of 1995, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-' 11 K to the writ petition.2. By the order dated 15th February, 1995, the following dispute Under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred to for adjudication before the Labour Court, Kanpur :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh /kesZUnz dqekj cktis;h iq= Jh jRus'k ukjk;.k cktis;h] cqd dhfiax dks fnukad1-7-88 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkukmfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dkvf/kdkjh gS fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdu fooj.kksa ds lkFk ** 3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the concerned workman Dharmendra Kumar Bajpayee was appointed by the petitioners-employer, according to the workman, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Turpentine and ResIn Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2007)7VST521(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This is a revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of Tribunal dated April 12,1991 relating to the assessment year 1972-73.2. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer-opposite party, was a Government Company and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rosin turpentine oil. During the year under consideration, the dealer had sold turpentine oil for Rs. 28,71,232 to M/s. Campher and Allied Products, Bareilly and claimed the rebate on such sale under Section 5 read with Rule 27-D. The dealer duly filed declaration in forms VII-G and VII-H before the assessing authority as required under Rule 27-D (3) after receiving them from the purchasing dealer, M/s. Campher and Allied Products. The assessing authority has disallowed the claim of rebate on the ground that M/s. Campher and Allied Products had shown the stock transfer of the finished goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Prasad Upadhyay Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC587(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This is a revision filed by the applicant-assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal dated February 4, 1991 relating to assessment year 1979-80.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had purchased bricks and sold them after converting into small pieces in the form of gitti. Before the assessing authority, the applicant claimed that the bricks were purchased after paying tax, therefore, the gitti made out of such bricks, was not liable to tax. Assessing authority levied tax on the gitti on the ground that the conversion of bricks into gitti was manufacturing process and the applicant being a manufacturer, was liable to tax on the gitti. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was also rejected.3. I have heard Sri P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.4. The short que...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Kothari Chemicals
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST498(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are two revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order of Tribunal dated September 18, 1990 relating to assessment year 1982-83 both under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The dealer-opposite party was carrying on the business of pan masala. For the month of May, 1982, dealer had filed monthly return both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act as required under Rule 41 and deposited the admitted tax by cheque along-with return on June 29,1982. It appears that the cheque was not presented in the bank up to July 21,1982 and on July 22,1982, Income-tax department had attached the bank account of the dealer which was released on July 29, 1982. It appears that the cheque was presented with the bank during the period July 22,1982 to July 29,1982 and the same was dishonoured. Dealer on receipt of an information that the cheque was dishonoured, deposited the admitted ta...
Tag this Judgment!Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN656(All)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an Income Tax Reference raising the question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the deduction of an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,02,640 payable by the assessee as interest under section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 in the computation of its business profits for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'3. It has been categorically held by a Full Bench's decision of this court in a case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT 1983 UPTC 1261, that interest paid on sugarcane purchase tax arrears under the provisions of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 as an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in deleting thereby the disallowance of interest. The same view has been taken on sole question No. 1 in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]188ITR787(All) . Thus, in view of the judgment we answer reference in favour of the assessee and aga...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST599(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are three revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order of the Tribunal dated February 5, 1991 relating to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The brief facts of the case are that the dealer-opposite party was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of kattha and cutch at Bareilly. The dealer had a sale depot at Calcutta. Dealer had appointed M/s. Kedia Brothers, Calcutta, as a sole distributor for West Bengal, Orissa. During all the aforesaid years it has been stated that kattha and cutch have been dispatched to the depot by way of stock transfer. Assessing authority has treated the stock transfer of kattha and cutch as inter-State sale. Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Sales Tax, Bareilly, which was rejected. Dealer filed second appeals before the Tribunal which were allowed in part. Before the Tribunal dealer had accepted the stock transfer of cutch as...
Tag this Judgment!Anurag Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2542
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned select list dated 15.6.2001 Annexure-5 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the Selection Board to re-advertise the retail outlet of village Sohanpur, district Deoria. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. An advertisement appeared in the newspaper on 25.8.2000 inviting applications for eligible candidates for running retail outlet/kerosene/L.D.O. dealership and L.P.G. distributorship. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature against the advertisement and he has alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that he fulfilled all the conditions. He also produced the lease deed dated 7.9,2000 before the Selection Board at the time of interview and hence he claimed that he was entitled to preferential treatment on account of the fact that he owned land on the site where the proposed retail outlet was to be given. ...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Shiv Mohan Kunzroo and ors. Vs. Dy. Secretary, U.P. Shasan and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2545
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. As prayed by Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, 24 hours is granted to file counter-affidavit, 2. We are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that a learned single Judge has passed an order in some writ petition that along with every writ petition, copies of the writ petition for every respondent should also be attached to the original writ petition. 3. We, respectfully disagree with the learned single Judge. It has never been the practice of this Court that for the respondents, copies of the writ petition must be attached to the original writ petition. In fact, if the writ petition is dismissed in limine, then it will not be necessary for the petitioner to give copies of the writ petition to the respondents (except standing counsel). With profound respect to the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that it will be an unnecessary heavy expense to the petitioner to compel him to supply copies of the writ petition to the respon...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industria ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2661
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 28th April, 2003, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners--employers U. P. State Electricity Board (now U. P. Power Corporation Limited) have challenged the impugned award dated 3rd September, 1990, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, U. P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. From the narration of fact, it appears that the respondent workman Mohd. Jamil was employed in September, 1977 as a muster roll employee on daily wages. The services of the workmen were terminated in the year 1979, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised in which two questions were required to be answ...
Tag this Judgment!Parsadi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ104
M.C. Jain, J.1. Appellant Parsadi has challenged the order of his conviction and sentences passed on 12-2-1987 by Sri S.R. Bhargava, the then Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1985. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I.P.C. with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Presently, he is in jail.2. The incident took place on 26-10-1984 at about 2.45 p.m. near the Hospital in Bengali Colony, P.S. Shishgarh, District Bareilly. Lalji was murdered in the incident and injuries were caused to his daughter Rama Devi PW-2. The report was lodged by Omkar PW-1, an eye-witness, (son of the deceased) the same day at 4.10 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 8 kms. The deceased died in District Hospital, Bareilly.3. The broad features of the prosecution case may be set forth. The day of the incident was Bhaivadooj (26-10-1984) fall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »