Allahabad Court August 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.
Simco Rubber Product (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: [2004]51SCL272(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned letter dated 8-3-2003. Annexure 3 to the writ petition issued by the respondent Bank of India. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent Bank to accept one time settlement offer of the petitioner as contained in the letter dated 4-3-2003, Annexure 2 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is having its factory at Sikandra Industrial Area, Agra. The petitioner took a loan from the respondent Bank whose sanctioned limit is Rs. 27 lacs as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the factory ran into financial difficulties soon after the production began because of the low demand in the market of the petitioners' product. Hence the petitioner could not achieve the expected profits and hence could ...
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Alias Kamloo Singh Alias Kaloo Singh Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ976
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A.2. We have perused the notice which does not bear any date of its issuance though the date for appearance of the petitioner is fixed 28-5-2003 at 10.00 A. M. and also for filing of his response meaning thereby the notice must have been issued in close proximity of the date it bears for appearance. There is another glaring fact available from the record that the report for issuance of notice was sent to the Magistrate on 23rd August, 2002. The District Magistrate remained sleeping over the report for over 8 months. Suddenly his slumber was broken and the notice was issued to the petitioner as stated above. These facts undoubtedly indicate the callous approach of the concerned authority. This further indicates that the notice was issued without any application of mind whatsoever. It was not seen whether the action is necessary even now. The conduct of the concerned authority in utilising the relevant provisions against ...
Mukesh Chandra Kushalia and ors. Vs. Jai Kirti Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1286
Pradeep Kant and M.A. Khan, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri Rajiv Srivastava for the petitioners/respondents and Sri Upendra Misra for the respondent Jal Nigam.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants Dr. L.P. Misra has submitted that the appellants had appeared in the selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 28.2.2003 in respect of the vacancies of Junior Engineer as Scheduled Castes candidates and were finally selected. In pursuance of the said selection they were issued appointment orders and they were allowed to resume duties some time in June, 2003 but without impleading the appellants, the present petition has been filed in which an interim order was passed, the effect of which is cessation of the employment of the appellants and in pursuance of the said interim order, the U.P. Jal Nigam has passed an order dated 5.8.2003 that the persons, who have been issued appointment orders and have joined in pursuance of the order dated 26.6.2003...
Parmatma Prasad Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN322(All)
This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding the difference between the assessed income and the income returned, namely, Rs. 12,000 as representing the applicants concealed income ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) were correctly applied when the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was deleted with effect from 1-4-1976 ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had not discharged its burden within the meaning of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) as it stood at the relevant time and whether there was any material for such a finding ?'2. We have carefully perused the appellate order of t...
Brijesh Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR669(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.The appellant is challenging the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, dated May 5, 2003.The appellant is a manufacturer of sarees of different lengths and for that purpose used to purchase gray cloth from various parties. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessment Officer came to the conclusion that the purchases from various parties totalling Rs. 4,04,019 were not verifiable. The appellant could not produce the bills of these parties and claimed that they were petty manufacturers and hence they did not submit bills. The appellant claimed that the bills of these four parties were got printed by the asses-see himself and were issued as and when those parties came to sell their cloths. The Assessing Officer made efforts to verify the assessee's stand by sending notices to these parties, but all the letters came back unner...
Devesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2794
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and the Standing Counsel.2. Petitioner has passed B.Ed. Examination in 1991. He submitted applications before the Secondary Education Service Commission, Azamgarh, in pursuance of the advertisement for BTC trained candidates for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary School but neither the fate of the application had not been communicated to him nor was called for interview. It is alleged that the B.Ed. training qualification of the petitioner is higher if not equivalent to BTC training.3. The State Government has framed 'The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 in exercise of power under Section 19 (1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (UP. Act No. 24 of 1972). These Rules are applicable to Basic Schools, Juniors Basic Schools and Nursery Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. Part III and IV of the Rules deal with the recruitment and qualification required for appointment of Teache...
Cit Vs. Basant Cinema
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN498(All)
This is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following question has been referred for our opinion.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that where there is a change in the constitution of the firm, two assessments should be made, one for the period upto the date of the reconstitution of the firm and another for the post reconstitution period?'2. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. During the relevant previous year one of the partners retired from the firm on 28-2-1975 and thereafter the firm was reconstituted with the remaining two partners and a fresh deed was executed on 1-3-1975. The question is whether there will be one assessment year or two assessments. This controversy has been decided by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Ratan Lal Garib Dass (2003) 261 ITR 2001. Following that decision the reference is decided in the negative th...
Bhagyodaya Builders Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN305(All)
This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the Income Tax Officer for the enhancement of assessment by Rs. 93,000 fell within the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancing under section 251 of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the refusal of the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise the discretion in favour of the Income Tax Officer could be interfered with by, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the Income Tax Officer had already taken recourse to alternate remedy under section 148, the order of remand passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to investigate the matter over again is valid in law ?'2. A perusal of paragraph 22 of the Tribunals appellate order shows that the Tribunal has only remand...
Krishna Rice Mill and ors. Vs. Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribuna ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All57; III(2004)BC124
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the Debt Recovery Case No. 105 of 2003 (State Bank of India v. Krishna Rice Mills) in pursuance to the ex parte judgment dated 4-6-2003.2. It appears that respondent State Bank of India filed an original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 33,64,370.98 along with 17.85% interest against the petitioner. In that case an ex parte judgment dated 4-6-2003 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad decreeing the claim of the State Bank of India vide Annexure-1 to the petition. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a Restoration Application under Section 22(1)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the same is pending for disposal. True copy of the application is Annexure-2 to the petition.3. It is alleged that a recovery certificate has been issued against the pe...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Bajaj Steel and Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC600(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision at the instance of Commissioner of Trade Tax has been filed against the order dated July 18, 2003 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, in Second Appeal No. 353 of 2003 for the assessment year 2003-04.2. The above revision arises out of proceedings Under Section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). The sole question involved in the present revision is as to whether stainless steel sheets can be seized by the authorise officer in exercise of power Under Section 13-A of the Act read wit section 8-A(5) of the Act, for non-production of form No. 49.3. The factual scenario of the case is not much in dispute lies in narrow compass. On June 4, 2003 the authorised officer seize the goods, namely, stainless steel sheets which were being transported by M/s. Moradabad Bijnor Transport Company from Orai to Moradbad. The goods were accompanied with invoice No. 7 and G.R. No. 1588. The sole objection of the authorised of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »