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.
K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(All)42; [2003]262ITR70(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is an income-tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, dated April 29, 1999, copy of which is annexure 4 to this appeal.4. The relevant assessment year is 1986-87.5. The assessee-company had purchased gas cylinders worth Rs. 39,44,650 and had claimed depreciation on such assets, at the rate of 100 per cent., which was the rate, applicable to such kind of assets.6. In relation to the said- claim, the assessee placed on record, besides other things, the following facts :(a) the cylinders in question had been purchased for use in the manufacture of oxygen gas, a step that had been taken by the assessee-company in the direction of diversification of its existing business activities. (b) As the plant for manufacturing of oxygen gas could not come up, the cylinders (so purchased by the assessee at a ...
Adarsh Brick Kiln Industry Vs. Chairman of Prevention and Control of P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All58; 2003(3)AWC2579
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Sri D. R. S. Chauhan for petitioner and Dr. H. N. Tripathi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.12.2001 passed by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board and the another dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority by which he has been directed to change the site of brickkiln at an appropriate place, after following the requirements of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.3. One Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh made complaints against petitioners for causing pollution to the neighbouring village by their brickkiln. In Writ Petition No. 4189 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 5.2.2001 directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board to dispose of his representation in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication. An inspection was made and that after giving notice to petitioner industry and hearing them on 19.3.2001, it was found that petitioner...
Kaushlesh NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Upper Ayukt, Pratham Mandal and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2578
ORDERS. K. Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. As the pleading between the parties are complete, as prayed, matter is being heard and finally decided.2. Challenged in this petition is the order of the appellate authority dated 28.2.1997 by which Appeal No. 2/7 of 1996-97 has been decided. 3. Besides other aspects, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has not applied his mind and has not referred to the various arguments advanced before him which were taken in the memo of appeal and has dismissed the appeal in a most arbitrary and cursory manner which being besides without Jurisdiction is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned standing counsel on the basis of the facts mentioned in the judgment of the appellate authority and on the basis of the facts so stated in the counter-affidavit submitted that the judgment of the appellate authority is well-considered and reasoned and on the facts ...
Sushil Singh Vs. Prabhu NaraIn Yadav and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All331
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, assisted by Sri S.S. Yadav and Sri N.K. Pandey for applicant-respondent No. 1 Prabhu Narain Yadav, the returned candidate, and Sri Y.P. Sharma, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Shukla for election petitioner Sri Sushil Singh. 2. The above election petition has been filed by Sri Sushil Singh. On its presentation on 2-3-2002, notices were issued on 8-3-2002. On the same day, an amendment application No. (sic) of 2002 dated 7-3-2002, was allowed subject to objections permit-ling the applicant, to incorporate para I and II for verification of the petition as well as verification of annexures. The service was deemed to be sufficient on the respondents vide order dated 15-2-2002 and 23-7-2002. The subject application, raising preliminary objection, was filed on 16-8-2002 to which reply/objection was filed on 17-9-2002 vide paper No. A-27. Arguments were heard on 29-10-2002, 13-11-2002 and thereafter on 14-2-2003, and the orders were reserved. 3. Sri T...
Nanhey Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC567
S.K. Agarwal, J.Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.1. A curious question has been fostered very compassionately by learned Counsel for the applicants in this case. The question is that can the defence side be blunted at a premature stage of its defence taken during the investigation stage by the investigating agency.2. Few facts are necessary to remove the incongruity in the submission. In this case at the stage of investigation, Under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. the defence has come outwith the plea that Javitri Devi is wife of Lal Bahadur though shrewdly by implication. This was not said directly. The case of the prosecution as set up in the First Information Report was that Nanhi Devi @ Oma Devi was married to accused Lai Bahadur s/o Tej Narain Gangwar on 14.3.1996. the invitation card submitted by the accused-applicants in their defence before the Investigating Officer gave out the name of the wife of the said Lal Bahadur as Javitri Devi. The date of marriage ...
Anil Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Veenu Mishra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC404
S.K. Agarwal, J.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.1. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there are possibilities and strong prospects of a compromise between husband and wife. Ten years have already elapsed since the husband and wife are living apart from each other. The off-spring is the only person who is to bear the ill-effect of this stress in their relations. The submission, no doubt, is a compassionate urgence and touches the deep inner sense but once we go into the above aspect, compassion is whittled down completely. The charges against the husband from the side of the wife was that he has illicit intimacy with his own cousin, daughter of his Mousi (mother's sister). In the circumstances, it would be next impossible for any woman of good sense and humour to compromise her dignity and honour with a person of this debased and defined bent of mind. In the circumstances, this Court cannot exuberate any sympathy to this applicant. Howeve...
Rahul Tandon Vs. Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2539; (2003)2UPLBEC1172
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner in the instant petition is the son of deceased employee of Allahabad Bank and at the time of his death, the deceased Ramesh Narain Tandon was serving in the said Bank on the post of Manager at Katra Branch, Allahabad. 2. The factual matrix of the case draped in brevity is that late Sri R. N. Tandon suffered affliction due to cancer and the disease prolonged to a span of five years and ultimately he succumbed to the dreaded disease on 12.9.1998. During the course of his affliction, the deceased underwent treatment at various places including Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and was administered chemotherapy treatment on six occasions in succession. It would further appear from the record that the deceased was advanced loan of Rs. 3 lacs by the Bank to meet expenses being incurred on his treatment. It is also eloquent from the record that the matter for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was represented to the respondent No. 3 initially o...
Ram Kishun Vs. State Election Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2271; (2003)2UPLBEC1340
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned declaration dated 8.3.2001(Annexure-6 to this writpetition) declaring Balwantrespondent No. 4 as electedPramukh Kshettra PanchayatBhathat, district Gorakhpur ;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent not to administer oath of office to respondent No. 4 for elected post of Pramukh Kshettra Panchayat Bhathat, district Gorakhpur ;(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Bhathat, district Gorakhpur in pursuance of the declaration dated 8.3.2001 (Annexure-4 to this writ petition) ;(d) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case ;(e) award t...
Naresh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1163
Khem Karan, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for :(a) quashing the order dated 15.10.1997 (Annexure No. 18), passed by the Director, Mandi Parishad;(b) quashing the order dated 26.5.1997 (Annexure No. 9) passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi; and(c) for commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to those orders and to allow the petitioners to work on their respective posts and to pay them their salary since May, 1997.2. The case of the petitioners is that all of them were appointed in the year 1996, on the posts and on the dates, detailed in Para 12 of writ petition, in Mandi Samiti, Varanasi, by the then Secretary of Samiti, after following due procedure, prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulations of 1984), framed under Sections 25-A and 26-X of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. They say that they continued working, on ...
Nand Kishore Vs. Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1570
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management. Standing Counsel has stated that even though earlier time was granted and intimation was sent to the department but no counter-affidavit has been filed. He prays for further time to file counter-affidavit. This Court vide its order dated 16th September, 2002 granted two weeks with stop order to the Standing Counsel to file the counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed, nor any application has been filed seeking further time. In the circumstances, I do not consider it fit to grant any further time to the Standing Counsel for filing the counter-affidavit.2. Bala Prasad Kushwaha Intermediate College, Balrampur Bazar, Allahabad is a recognized and aided institution upto Intermediate level. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and due approval was granted on ad-hoc basis by the District In...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »