Allahabad Court July 2003 Judgments
Ved Prakash Tiwari and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3092
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment as Assistant Teacher in the primary schools and to pay them salary on the said post of Assistant Teacher in the primary schools.2. Since the common question of law is involved, all the writ petitioners are being disposed of together by a common judgment finally with the consent of the parties.3. The writ petitioners are holding the B. Ed. degree while admittedly the B.T.C. trained teachers are eligible for the post of the Assistant Teacher of the primary schools under Rules. The facts as alleged in the petitions are near about the same. There are U.P. Basic Education (Teacher Service) Rules, 1981 which lay down the eligibility for the post of the Assistant Teacher in primary schools. Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules deal with the academic qualification. This rule provides the follo...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Shukla Vs. U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC1025
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner is a 'Guarantee Peon' in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank, Faizabad. He has challenged the order of suspension dated 28.4.2003 contained in Annexure-1.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vimal Kumar and Shri N.K. Seth learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.3. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on two grounds : firstly the impugned order is an order of suspension from the back date and consequently it is an invalid order because suspension order is passed by way of discretion which has not been exercised after applying the mind. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and on his arrest, he was suspended on 14.9.2001 from 7.8.2001 which is the date of his arrest through Annexure-3. He was granted bail on 18.4.2002. The bail order is Annexure-4. His suspension order was kept in abeyance after he was bailed out on 11.12.2002. This order is Annexure-5. During his trial, charges have been f...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ram Kishore Raj Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN511(All)
ORDERBy this Income Tax Reference, we have been asked to give our opinion on the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner could assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?' There is no dispute at the Bar as Shri Mahajan as well as Shri Gulati, agree to the extent that the Commissioner while exercising his power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could pass the order taking into account the issues not raised in the appeal. 2. In CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 501, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Doctrine of Merger and the effect of amendment with retrospective effect from 1-6-1988. For the provisions of section 263(1) along with clause (c) of its Explanation, the Honble Supreme Court held that the explanation to section 263(1), which was substituted by the Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 1-6-1988 was again amended by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Balaji Coal Linkers Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All141; 2003(4)AWC2845; 2004(1)CTLJ582(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Contracts awarded by the Government or some statutory body or an instrumentality of the State are often worth crores of rupees. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that there should be transparency in grant of such contracts so as to avoid public criticism.2. In the present case, the challenge is to the grant of the contract in question by the respondent No. 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (in short B.S.N.L) to the respondent No. 6 and for quashing the impugned letter dated 13.1.2003, Annexure-12 to the writ petition.3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.4. The respondent No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking which is engaged in providing telecommunication facilities all over the country and it is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 1 decided to start cellular telephonic service in west U. P. including district Badaun and decided to appoint distributors and dealers in this connection. For this purpose, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Anshuman Singh Sisodia Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3302
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned additional standing counsel.2. Petitioner, a Junior Engineer in Jal Sansthan, Jhansi had challenged his transfer order dated 24.6.2003, Annexure-1 by which he has been transferred from Jhansi to Jal Sansthan, Kanpur. He has challenged his transfer order on the ground that he has been transferred on the dictate of Shri Babu Ram, M.Com. a Minister in the State Government who is M.L.A. from Oral constituency of Legislative Assembly. In support of the allegations of mala fide against the Minister, the petitioner has alleged that the Minister has made a political issue for his transfer. It is alleged that Shri Santosh Singh Ex. M.P. from Congress Party is his close relative and during the last election of the Minister, the petitioner's close relative Mr. Santosh Singh Ex. M.P. of Congress Party from Azamgarh was incharge of Jhansi Division and he had stayed some night at the residence of the petitioner during e...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Nath Misra Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Federation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3305
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned Standing counsel for the opposite party No. 4.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the oral termination of the petitioner with effect from 21.5.2003 and the impugned order dated 28.4.2003, passed by the opposite party No. 3 General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Mahmudabad (Oudh), Sitapur, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner as a 'Fitter' Grade-II and to pay him his salary regularly every month as admissible to the regularly appointed Fitter Grade-II and further a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of wages from 20.5.1997 treating the petitioner as Fitter Grade-II.3. After hearing the parties and after perusing the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. J.R. Kanekar, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)189
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner-company carries on business of hiring of plant and machinery. The petitioner had by an agreement, dt. 28th June, 1982, entered into with Prerna Premises (P) Ltd., agreed to purchase three office premises, being office premises Nos. 22, 22A and 23 in Maker Chambers III, at Nariman Point, Bombay-400021 as well as four open car parking spaces, being car parking space Nos. 17 to 20, for a total cost of Rs. 28,66,634. It is the case of the petitioner that it subsequently became a member of the Maker Chambers III Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. By an agreement, dt. 19th June, 1984, entered into between the petitioner and the Bank of Maharashtra, the petitioner agreed to sell and the bank agreed to purchase from the petitioner all the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the said office premises and car parking spaces for a consideration, which was to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per square foot for the office premises and at Rs. 80,000...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Public School's Society Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2262
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been tiled for quashing the impugned amendment to Section 177 (c) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the. Act) by the U.P. Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002.2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It runs various Educational Institutions mentioned in Para 4 of the writ petition. It is alleged in Para 5 of the petition that these Educational Institutions are recognized either by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad or the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.3. Section 173 of the Act states:-'173. Property Taxes leviable.-(1) For the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 172 property taxes shall comprise the following taxes which shall, subject to the exceptions, limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, be levied on building and lands in the city- (a) a general tax which may be levied, if the Corporation so...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jai Prakash Associates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN72(All)
1. In this income-tax reference, following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee firm was an Industrial Undertaking and was, therefore, entitled to relief under sections 80HH, 80J and 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. There is full agreement at the bar that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) , wherein it has been held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit provided under sections 80HH, 80J and 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because the activity of the construction of a dam could not be characterized as manufacture or production of an article or articles within the meaning of section 80HH(2)(i).3. Thus, in view of the above, it is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.4. Shri. A.N. Mahajan appeared f...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Infosys Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC444
P.K. Chatterji, J. 1. This application has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.) thereby rejecting the application for release of the Bank Account of the applicant.2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was business associates of Uttar Pradesh Development Systems Corporation Ltd., a Government Undertaking known as UPDESCO and was imparting computer education and training to the students, general public and Government employees. An agreement was executed between UPDESCO and Kamal Infosys Pvt. Ltd, the applicant on 20th July, 1998 and the applicant was made business associates of UPDESCO. As per terms and conditions of the said agreement an A/c No. 21033 was opened at Union Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Lucknow. Thus, the applicant claims his genuine Account No. 21033. The realisation of franchise fee/licence fee, royalty and interest-fre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »