Allahabad Court April 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.
Madhav Prasad Goenka Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC620; 2005(3)AWC2113
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to re-deliver possession of premises No. CK 32/18, Goenka Bhawan, Gyanvapi, Varanasi to the petitioner alongwith arrears of compensation.3. The aforesaid property was requisitioned under the U.P. Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 for the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Kashi Vishwanath Mandir Board by order, dated 18.11.1985 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition). Earlier, on 22.8.1985, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, vide Annexure '2' to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an objection, dated 10.9.1985, vide Annexure '3' to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter submitted on 24.10.1985 the proposed terms and conditions for acquisition, vide Annexure '4' to the writ petition. However, it is alleged in para '5' of the petition that respondent No. 3 unilaterally fixed the terms and conditions. The petitioner on 17.12.1985 filed objection ...
Rama Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Secretary, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Sami ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC508(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated March 24, 2003 (Annexure-10), issued by the Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II, Mobile Squad, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar, and further for direction to the respondents to release the Deshi Ghee detained from the vehicle in question.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a vehicle was carrying the goods (Deshi Ghee), and as the proper documents were not found of the goods, the vehicle and the goods were seized by the respondent No. 2, Trade Tax Officer, Grade II and the order impugned was passed. Hence this petition.3. Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seizure has been in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions. Allegation made by the respondent No. 2 that the goods were not accompanied by documents is totally false and the seizure memo etc., is liable to be quashed.4. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel appearing ...
Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC693(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The question involved in the present revision is whether the ECG machines, defibrillators, colour doppler systems, patient monitoring equipments, hand held multimeter, RF network analyzer, communication performance analyzer, spectrum analyzer, mini OTDR are electronic goods and are liable to be taxed as such or are unclassified items. The case of the assessee is that these goods are electronic goods and are liable to be taxed under Notification No. 3402 dated October 1, 1994. Entry 74(a)(iii) of the said notification reads as follows :Description of goods Rate of tax'(iii) All other electronic goods not specified 4 per cent.anywhere else in the Schedule or in any othernotification.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1999-2000. The applicant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of electronic goods, which includes ECG machines, defibrillators, colour doppler, Patient monitoring ...
Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2587
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian Stamp (U.P. Second Amendment) Act, 1997 (U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998) as well as the Notification, dated 9.9.1998 Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the order dated 14.9.1998 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to realise the stamp duty on the basis of the above amendment in the Stamp Act, and to grant/renew licenses of the petitioner in this petition and in the connected writ petitions without compelling the petitioners to deposit stamp duty under the aforesaid U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998.2. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the impugned U.P. Act No. 23 of 1998 as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. A perusal of the above Act shows that by it, a new Article 38A has been added in Schedule 1B to the Indian Stamp Act. By this provision, new stamp duty on the licenses for various weapons as well as for various forms h...
National Capital Power Station and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All360; III(2003)BC331; (2003)2UPLBEC1543
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwise commanding the respondent-Bank of Baroda, Abid Circle Branch, Hyderabad to honour the thirteen Bank Guarantees along with interest ant the rate of 18% per annum from the date of invocation, specified at Annexure-1 to the writ petition as invocation by the petitioners by means of letter dated 8.10.1997 and 7.11.1998 (Annexures 6 and 12 to the writ petition).2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:The petitioner No. 1 is a unit of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (petitioner No. 2), which is a Government of India Undertaking. They entered into a contract with one M/s Aluminium Industries Limited situated at Ceramic Factor Road, Kundra, Kerala, respondent No. 4, for the purposes supply of equipments and spares, erection and Civil and Structural contract works. A contract was awarded vide lette...
Menka theater and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2616
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.2.1999, passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm, of which the petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners. The petitioners are carrying on the business of exhibiting cinematograph film and have obtained a licence under U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.2. In the normal course of business, two rates for admission in the picture hall have been fixed by the authority concerned in respect of cinema hall of the petitioners. One is the normal rate of admission as Rs. 6.22 for Balcony, Rs. 4.88 for Dress Circle and Rs. 3.55 for First Class. The second is, reduced admission rates, which are Rs. 4.66 for Balcony, Rs. 3.77 is for Dress Circle and Rs. 2.68 is for First Class.3. The petitioner exhibited a film '1942 A Love Story' which was screened from 4.8.1994 to 10.8.1994. It was declared tax-free by the Government by Government order dated 2.8.1994...
Emondson Engineers (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princip ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC163
Bhanwar Singh, J. 1. M/s. Emondson Engineers (P) Ltd., Lucknow and its Executive Director Shri Pushkar Bajpai have filed this petition for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure-6) whereby they were asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,88,048/- within fifteen days, failing which their properties were to be attached and put on auction-sale. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to recover the aforesaid amount nor to attach their immovable properties or put them on sale has also been sought for.2. Briefly stated, the petitioners' case is that M/s. Emondson Engineers (P) Ltd. is carrying on its business of sale of welding materials and consumable welding machines as also electrodes. A few years ago, the said company requested the opposite parties 2 to 5 for cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 12 lakhs. The City Cooperative Bank. Ltd., and its authorities sanctioned the cash credit facility on the pe...
Satan and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1552
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, Satan, Mohan, Tulsi, Khelari alias Khelawan, Ram Sukh, Birju and Mohd. Omar challenge the judgment and order dated 7-2-1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 117/1980, convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 304(i)/149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life;(ii) Under Section 307/149 IPC to undergo seven years' RI;(iii) Under Section 324/149 IPC to undergo three years' RI;and(iv) Under Section 323/149 IPC to undergo one years' RI.In addition, Satan, Mohan, Kheladi, Birju and Ram Sukh have been convicted Under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo l1/2 years' RI and Tulsi and Mohd. Omar Under Section 148 IPC to 21/2 years RI.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :--The informant Ramdin is the brother of the deceased Maharajdin and Sitaram PW-2 and the son of victim Smt. Patti (not examined). At the time of the incident, the aforesaid persons and the seven appell...
Ram Pravesh Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2096
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The facts of this case are fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Bhrosey Lal v. State of U.P. andOrs., 2000(93) R.D. 659. 3. As observed in the above decision, the persons, who can participate in the public auction/tender for grant of fishery lease or any other kind of lease, cannot be confined to only members or societies or group of particular castes e.g. Kewat, Mallah, Dheemar etc.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is Lohar by caste and respondents intend to give the fishery lease only to the people of Machhuwara caste. In our opinion, that would be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Ours is a free, Democratic Country and any person can do any kind of trade or business and not trade or business can be allowed to be given to any particular caste or group of particular castes as that would not only...
Cit Vs. Development Trust (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN824(All)
ORDERThe following question has been referred for opinion :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in following the view that the liability in this case was not contingent liability but in praesenti and consequently allowing the development expenses of Rs. 19,486 ?'2. Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Ratnakar Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent.3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of colonizing and land development besides having income from house property. It claimed development expenses of Rs. 64,986 which were allowed at Rs. 12,440 by the Income Tax Officer. He, however, modified the figure to Rs. 45,500 under section 154. The assessee went in appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner keeping in view the past history of the case as also the order of the Tribunal, deleted the addition of Rs. 19,486. The department filed appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »