Allahabad Court May 2003 Judgments
Dharm Pal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2954
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. These three writ petitions have been filed against the same order dated 25.4.2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner. Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow. 3. Brief facts giving rise to those writ petitions are : 4. Facts in all the three writ petitions are identical. Reference of facts in Writ Petition No. 21908 of 2003 are sufficient to dispose of the controversy raised in all three writ petitions. 5. Objections under Section 9A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioner claiming bhumidhari rights. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection and directed recording of the name of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. A revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against t...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Bank Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1147All
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner Bank challenges order dated May 1, 1985 and February 18, 1986 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference arising out of termination of respondent No. 2 workman, which reference is still pending before the Tribunal to be answered.2. Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that the respondent workman while working as a clerk in the petitioner bank was suspended vide order dated August 30, 1971 when a fraud was detected and first information reports were lodged. As it is in such cases the criminal (sic) investigation came to naught. Without any success, the respondent-workman challenged his suspension in a suit. A departmental enquiry was set in motion and a charge-sheet dated December 3, 1974 was served upon him. The charges related to specific cases of forgery in the ledger account of one individual who interestingly made payment through cheques in favour of a firm in the name of the wife of the workm...
Tag this Judgment!Dey's Medical Stores Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]134STC14(All)
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These are three revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'). The first two revisions, i.e., Revision No. 2 of 1997 (assessment year 1983-84), and Revision No. 5 of 1997 (assessment year 1988-89) are by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and the third Revision No. 147 of 1999 (assessment year 1983-84) is by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd. Both are sister concerns and have their registered and head offices at Calcutta, where they have their factories in which medicines are manufactured and then sold through their various sales offices throughout India.2. In Revision Nos. 2 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 there is one common question of law as to whether Keo Karpin brand hair vitaliser and baby oil manufactured by the applicants are medicines or cosmetics. Another common question of law involved in Revision No. 2 of 1997 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd. and Revision No. 147 of 1999 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (M...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]134STC189(All)
I.M.Quddusi, J.1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated January 25, 2001, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal confirming the imposition of penalty order under Section 15-A(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the alleged violation of Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. Before adverting to the various contentions raised by the revisionist and opposite parties, it is necessary to state the facts which have led to the filing of this revision and are borne out from a perusal of the pleadings on record, The revisionist is a manufacturer of soft drinks in Uttar Pradesh, having two bottling plants which manufactures the aforesaid soft drinks.3. The revisionist on January 8, 1998, placed a purchase order for the supply of soft drinks concentrates which is the raw material needed for producing soft drinks from a company based in Patiala known as Pepsi Foods Limited. A perusal of the purchase order which has been annexed wit...
Tag this Judgment!Deys Medical Stores Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]134STC1(All)
I.M.Quddusi, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all these seven revisions, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by one common judgment.2. The first four revisions have been filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., Revision No. 3 of 1997 relates to the assessment year 1984-85, Revision No. 4 of 1997 relates to the year 1985-86, Revision No. 6 of 1997 relates to the year 1987-88 and Revision No. 190 of 2003 relates to the year 1989-90. The other set of three revisions has been filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd. Revision No. 144 of 1999 relates to the year 1989-90, Revision No. 145 of 1999 relates to the year 1987-88 and Revision No. 146 of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1990-91.3. The question of law involved in the first four revisions filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., is whether Keo Karpin brand hair vitaliser and baby oil fall under the category of medicines or they are cosmetics. Similarly in the other set of three revisi...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Forest Corporation Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)205
R. B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri S P Gupta, learned senior advocate with Sri Tarun Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent2. In all these writ petitions the order dt 21st June, 2000, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short called Tribunal hereinafter), Allahabad, in Misc Application No 19 of 2000 (Annex 1), has been challenged along with prayer of seeking direction to the CIT(A) to consider the other grounds of the petitioner raised in the memo of appeal with further prayer for quashing the order dt 28th April, 1999 (Annex 5), of Tribunal, Allahabad, insofar as it confirmed the assessment order dt 3rd Aug, 1989, for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1988-89 in respect of grounds/issues which had not been adjudicated upon by the CJT(A) and to keep the assessment proceedings pending till the adjudication of those grounds by the CIT(A), Lucknow, is completed The petitioner has also challenged th...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Lal Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1488
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. The writ petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 1.7.1997 (Annexure-1) and order dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure-18). By virtue of the order Annexure-1, the Zonal General Manager, opposite party No. 4 had changed the petitioner's date of birth from 13.10.1941 to 13.10.1939 and in this way, he was informed that his date of superannuation at the age of 58 years (as the date of retirement then was) would be the last day of October, 1997. Annexure-18 was a similar order issued by the General Manager (Personnel), opposite party No. 3 and in pursuance of the said order, his original date of birth, i.e., 13.10.1941 was scored out and in its place, the corrected date of birth, i.e., 13.10.1939 was recorded. Seeking quashing of these two orders, the petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restore his original date of birth and allow him to continue in service until 31.10.1999.2. The factual matrix, as recited...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2319
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition order dated 26.12.1995 (Annexure 9) has been challenged, whereby the petitioner has been removed from Service.2. Heard Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State and respondents.3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in 56 Bn., N.C.C., Jhansi on 23.2.1967 and was regularised on 28.10.1983. However, for unauthorised absence from duty and for disobeying lawful orders of Commanding Officer and absenting himself frequently without leave for over two years and eleven months and for creating activities as security risk and for undesirable activities the petitioner was charge-sheeted and after obtaining reply and Enquiry Report the petitioner was removed from services on 26.12.1995. Against this order the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 7864 of 1996.4. It appears that for non-payment of salar...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2341
R.B. Misra, J.1. By means of Writ Petition No. 35115 of 1998 petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner, since July, 1997, continuously and by means of Writ Petition No. 9678 of 1999, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 10.3.1999 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and further prayed that the respondents be restrained from the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Clerk in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra, District Banda.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The facts relating to Writ Petition No. 35115 of 1998 are as follows :-In the year 1996, a substantive post of clerk was fallen vacant in the Nagar Parishad, Atarra, on account of incumbent of the post, due to resignation of Laxmi Prasad. However Shri Satish Chandra Awasthi Head Clerk of the said Nagar Palika Parishad, made a recommendation to th...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhash Chandra Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2348
R.B. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 31.10.95 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Allahabad and order dated 2.2.98 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi and further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner his salary and other emoluments with arrears.2. Heard Sri V.K. Singh and Sri G.K. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Govind Saran learned Counsel for the respondents.3. As contended on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force on 5.9,1977 and was transferred to Electric Loco Shed, Ghaziabad from Kanpur on 30.7.1995 and the petitioner was given ten days joining time till 8.8.1995. It appears that on 9.8.1995 the peti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »