Allahabad Court May 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.
Nishith Chandra Tiwari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ529All
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was a Branch Manager in the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Lucknow having been appointed in 1968. It is alleged in Paragraph 3 of the writ petition that a departmental enquiry was instituted against him and charge-sheet dated August 26, 1994 was issued to him vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Petitioner submitted his reply on September 15, 1994 denying the charges, vide Annexure 3. It is stated in paragraph 7 that thereafter no formal enquiry was held. The petitioner was neither given an opportunity of personal hearing nor was he afforded an opportunity to explain the alleged documentary evidence enumerated in the charge-sheet. On the contrary, on October 18, 1994 the Inquiry Officer submitted a report, vide Annexure 4. The Managing Director of the Bank, on the basis of so called enquiry report, issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner, vide Annexure 5 to which the petitioner sent a reply 1 dat...
Bandoo Bedia and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4627
1. There are eight writ petitions connected with each other. Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 43233 of 2002, therefore, is treated as principal case. It was preferred by Bandoo Bedia son of Ralli Bedia. Other petitioners are Bhagoni alias Bhagwan alias Bhagwan Das alias. Bhagone, Raghav Bedia, Pappu Bedia, Gabbar Bedia, Vijay Bedia, Raj Pal Bedia and Kullu Bedia.2. An F.I.R. was registered as case Crime No. 135 of 2002 against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43233 of 2002 and nine others under Sections 147/148/149/323/353, I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act at P.S. Madawara, District Lalitpur.3. The facts of the F.I.R. as disclosed in the grounds of detention, are that on 10-6-2002 at about 4.45 p.m. in a Mela (fair) which was going on in village Rangaon near Moti Mandir, Pappu Bedia, the brother-in-law of the petitioner, was exhibiting unpleasant behaviour towards females. He was asked to desist from his misconduct by three policemen present in the Mela....
M.G. Contractor and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi Mandal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1524
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. These five petitions are interknit together by common questions canvassed across the Bar and therefore, all these petitions have been heard with the consensus of the learned Counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by a composite order.2. The question that emerges for adjudication is whether the stamp duty is payable in the matter of Tahbazari settled by public auction in the event of bid having been signed by the bidder and the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad/Zila Panchayat and other Officers?3. Sarvsri A.K. Srivastava, Arun Tandon, and Ikram Ahmad argued the case on behalf of the petitioners and on the other hand learned Standing Counsel representing the State Authorities canvassed in vindication of the stand of the State Authorities in the matter.4. Only so much facts as bear on the controversy involved in the first petition namely Writ Petition No. 12284 of 2003, are that for the year 2002-2003, Zila Panchayat, Jalaun published auction for right of ...
Sechan Prasad Vs. Regional Manager, L.i.C. of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC254; 2004ACJ664
R.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Sechan Prasad for quashing the impugned orders dated 26.2.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures '11' and '12' to the writ petition) and also for quashing the order dated 9.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 repudiating the claim in respect of policy Nos. 281361268 and 281891915. Also a prayer has been made for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the assured amount of the above policies together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 4.11.1997 till the date of payment.2. The affidavits have been exchanged by the parties. The claim of the petitioner in this petition is that his wife Meena Devi alias Usha Devi was a policyholder of the respondents during her lifetime in the form of policy Nos. 281891915, 281361268 and 281556290. According to the petitioner, policy Nos. 281891915 and 281361268 were assured to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 each in favour of Meena Devi alias Ush...
Mahesh Singh Vs. Indra Pal Singh (Dr.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2290
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. Request has been made to punish the opposite parties for committing dis-obedience of the order of this Court dated 18.4.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 33016 of 1994.2. I have heard Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties.3. The petitioner and other persons were employees of erstwhile department of agriculture of the State Government and their services were transferred on creation of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the University). Several writ petitions were filed regarding service benefits either by grade or by promotion on transfer of the services to the said University. All the writ petitions including the above writ petition filed by the petitioner and Dr. U.N. Pandey were disposed of by a common judgment by order dated 18.10.1994 of which the disobedience is alleged by the petitioner.4. Various counter and rejoinder affidav...
Cwt Vs. Ramju Mal NaraIn Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN406(All)
ORDERThis reference under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 has been made by the Tribunal for our decision on the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the residential kothi owned by the assessee in each of the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1975-76 be valued in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 and the directions of the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Mr. Biju Patnaik in WTA Nos. 614 to 624/ Delhi/79 and others decided on 17-2-1981 ?'2. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar : 1995ECR425(SC) wherein it has been held that 1BB of the Rules, 1957 partakes of the character of rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of particular method of relaxation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. Rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979 w...
Baboo Lal Goyal Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC358(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy as to whether freight though charged separately, will form part of turnover or not, these two revisions have been filed for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. The Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra, by a common order passed in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1991 (1984-85) and Second Appeal No. 81 of 1991 (1985-86) has held that the freight though charged separately, will form part of the turnover as the sale was for destination and as per conditions of the agreement.3. The applicant, in response to a press note issued by Ramganga Command Area Development entered into an agreement for supply of stones at Aligharh, Hathras, Khair, Atrauli and Sikandrarao. The agreement was entered into between the assessee and Chairman of Ramganga Command Area Development Authority. In the tender notice under condition No. 11 it was mentioned that the cost of stones and transportation charges should be indicated separately.4. The sales tax authorities accepted t...
Cwt Vs. Kapoor Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN401(All)
ORDERThis reference under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 has been made by the Tribunal for our decision on the following question :'Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 has not been made effective from 1-4-1979 was to apply even in respect of pending assessments for orders prior to assessment year 1979-802. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) wherein it has been held that 1BB of the rule 1957 partakes of the character of rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of particular method of relaxation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. Rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979 when the Rules came into force.3. In view of above reference is answered in affirmative against department in favour of the assessee.4. This ...
Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC626; (2003)2UPLBEC1785
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) as ultra vires and for quashing the notices dated 31.12.2002 Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company. The petitioner No. 1 took loans from respondent No. 1 (the State Bank of India) and U.P. Financial Corporation. It is alleged that the present secured loan outstanding from U.P. Financial Corporation is Rs. 137.89 lakhs as principal amount, and from respondent No. 1 is Rs. 39 lakhs as principal amount. The petitioner No. 1 was having a total cash credit limit of Rs. 37 lakhs from the respondent No. 1. A dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 in June 1995 owing to clean bill limits (discounting) facility and the Bank ...
Ajay Kumar Vs. Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, (E.C. Act) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR563(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner was Awarded a contract by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Lucknow, on behalf of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, for execution of civil work on 27.06.1991. Some disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner requested the Chief Engineer to refer the matter to an Arbitrator. The Chief Engineer did not appoint any Arbitrator. Whereupon the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, before the Civil Judge, Meerut for appointment of an Arbitrator, which application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.03.1997. However, in the appeal filed by the respondents, the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut vide judgment and order dated 21.01.1999 while allowing the appeal had set aside the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that no dispute exists and further the trial Court was not justified in appointing an Arbitrator and at best it could have asked ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »