Allahabad Court August 2003 Judgments
iqbal HussaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR179(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Department.2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 31, 2003, has been challenged.3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in this appeal. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has from paragraphs 9 to 15 of the impugned order considered all aspects of the matter in great detail and has held that the area in which the land in question was located was not fully developed and no civic amenities were available in 1981. It has also been held that the land in question was developed after a period of 14 years from April 1, 1981, after the master plan was announced and there was not much potentiality for the use of the land for development purpose as on April 1, 1981. The land in question is situate on the road from Gorakhpur to Pipriah Kasba and this road is neithe...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudh Prasad Yadav Alias Sadhu Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All123; 2004(28)PTC559(All)
1. Petitioner-Anirudh Prasad Yadav alias Sadhu Yadav, said to be an Ex. M.L.C. and sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, State of Bihar has approached this Court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued imposing ban on screening of motion picture 'Ganga-Jal' produced and directed by Mr. Prakash Jha-opposite party No. 7.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a sitting M.L.A. and holding various posts in different capacities, enjoys a very good reputation in the country. He also claims himself to be the brother of Chief Minister of Bihar.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite party No. 7 aired the advertisement of Film 'Ganga Jal' on 23-8-2003 through the capsule/trailer in various electronic channels which includes Sony, Zee Cinema, Set Max, Star Gold, Aaj-Tak, Star Plus and others. In the picture, one of the main characters i.e. Villain has been named as Sadhu Yadav. The role of villain is said to h...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1007
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1983 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by which claim petition of the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected by the Tribunal.2. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Amin in Tehsil Biswan, was suspended by an order dated 22.12.1994 in contemplation of inquiry. According to the petitioner an inquiry was held without letting the petitioner know the date of inquiry. Not only this, the Inquiry Officer did not inform the petitioner the place of enquiry and the date fixed by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter on the basis of the inquiry report show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner since the charges/departmental inquiry was similar to the charges pending in the criminal court of law the petitioner informed that he is helpless to disclose his stand before the final decision of the Court concerned because it m...
Tag this Judgment!Mukteshwar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1335
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27-4-1981 passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1979, convicting appellants Mukteshwar (19) and Adya Pandey (20) under Section 302 read with Section 34 1PC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :--Gautam Pandey (19) deceased was nephew of Chandra Shekhar Pandey (P.W. 1) and brother of Purusottam Pandey (P.W. 3). The appellants and deceased were residents of village Rupai, P. S. Khukhundu, district Deoria. A year before the occurrence of this case Mukteshwar appellant had stolen cycle of Mahadeo Bania of village Vaikunthpur. When Mahadeo demanded his cycle from Mukteshwar appellant he asked to pay Rs. 40/- to which Mahadeo agreed. The payment of above Rs. 40/- was made through Chandra Shekhar (P.W. 1). Subsequently, Mukteshwar appellant did not hand over cycle to Mahadeo, nor he refunded the...
Tag this Judgment!Sanchalak Blue Bird Junior High School Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR9]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-employers aggrieved by the order of the labour Court, Agra dated 27th February, 1985, passed on an application filed by the contesting respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short 'Act'), for computation of amount have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'VII' to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.3. From the facts as enumerated in the writ petition as also in the order impugned in the present writ petition, it reveals that the workman concerned has filed an application for computation of amount for a sum of Rs. 1,020/-, including the bonus. The labour Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material evidence on record have found that the workman concerned is entitled for computation of amount of sum of Rs. 940/-, therefore the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khattar and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR252(All)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue and the other question at the instance of the assessee.2. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee in the accounting period relevant to the assessment order 1977-78 was a 'financial company' as defined in Explanation (c) to Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The question referred at the instance of the assessee is as follows : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gross total income of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 including in profits and gains derived in an industrial undertaking ?' 3. As regards the question referred at the instance of the Revenue, a finding of fact has been recorded in para. 9 of the Tribunal's order that the principal business of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Rastogi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ12
Janardan Sahai, J.1. This revision has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against an award given by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi holding brief for Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, counsel for respondent-claimant about its maintainability. I have heard Mr. V.K. Birla, the learned counsel for the applicant insurance company also on this point. His submission is that under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), an appeal is provided against the award but it is not open to the insurance company to challenge therein the quantum of compensation awarded and the scope of challenge in such an appeal is confined to the statutory defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2) of the Act and there being thus in effect no remedy of appeal the award of the Tribunal is subject to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. However, in cases where an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal Maurya Vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC716
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The petitioner has challenged validity and correctness of the orders dated 19.7.2000 and 8.8.2000, by which he has been transferred from Allahabad to Delhi. The petitioner has claimed himself to be Trade Union worker and President of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Allahabad Unit of the Trade Union.3. It is submitted that the General Manager of the Nigam addressed a letter to Joint Managing Director on 8.8.2000 stating therein that in view of order dated 30.3.1993 the petitioner cannot be transferred from Allahabad. The order dated 30.3.93, provides that the Government Servants, who are office bearers in recognized Trade Union such as the President or the Secretary, will not be transferred for a period of two years from the date of appointment on the post; and in case of necessity, approval may be taken by the authority higher by one rank than the transferring authority.4. It is submitted that according to ...
Tag this Judgment!Afzal Ahmad Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN201(All)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the notice dated 1-7-2003 (Annexure-6 to this petition). That notice has been issued in pursuance of order under section 179 of Income Tax Act, dated 19-3-2001. Against the order dated 19-3-2001 petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar by the order dated 23-10-2002 vide Annexure-5 to this petition.3. Learned counsel for the department raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has a right to file an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 23-1-2003. Learned counsel for the, assessee submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that an order under section 179 is not appealable.4. In our opinion even if an order under section 179 is not appealable it is certainly revisable under section 264 of the Income Tax Act.5. Hence, this petition is dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy....
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ435All
Vineet Saran, J.1. One Chhotey Singh, who was a Runner in the Irrigation Department, died in harness on December 30, 1999. Claiming himself to be the adopted son of Chhotey Singh, the writ petitioner-appellant Jai Prakash got an appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Dying in Harness Rules). The competent authority (respondent No. 2) cancelled the said appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant on March 31, 2003. Challenging the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 26974 of 2003 which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated July 14, 2003. Hence this appeal has been preferred against the orders dated March 31, 2003 of the competent authority as well as of the learned single Judge dated July 14, 2003.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that after the death of Chhotey Singh on December 30, 1999, his widow adopted the ; ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »