Allahabad Court September 2003 Judgments
Sukhan and anr. Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC149
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Present petition has been instituted seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 25.2.2003, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the revision preferred by the opposite parties was allowed and direction was issued to rectify the revenue records in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in Suit No. 56 of 1963.2. The dispute in the instant petition pertains to plot No. 220 comprising in khata No. 108 situated in village Wazidpur Pargana Athgaon district Varanasi. The facts which are beyond the pale of dispute are that the entire holding comprising in Khasra Nos. 220, 252/4, 252/7, 219/6 and 219/7 originally belonged to one Harbalak. The aforesaid property descended to Parhu and Prabhu as co-parceners both sons of Harbalak. it is alleged that Parhu being karta of the joint family, contrived to secure mutation of his name in the revenue records as the sole tenure holder. Respondent No. 2 descendant of Prabhu instituted partition Suit No. 56 of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Major B.K. Kaul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR345(All)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the payment of salary to the assessee's wife, Smt. Lajja Kaul, was not covered by the provisions of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessee was a war hero, who lost both his hands, in the 1971 war. He was given a Vijay Scooter Agency so that he could earn his livelihood. While framing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee had paid a salary of Rs. 1,200 per month to his wife, Smt. Lajja Kaul. The Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to explain why this salary should not be added to his income. The assessee replied that he was handicapped and disabled ex-serviceman and had to get 24 hou...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Roy Vs. Department of Atomic Energy and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC309
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay 10% of the pay scale which is lower amongst the two posts, against which the petitioner is working.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner applied and was selected by the Harish Chandra Research Institute, respondent No. 3 as Internal Audit-Cum-Administrative Officer vide appointment letter dated 15.12.1999 in the pay scale of 6,500-200-10,500 vide Annexure-2 to the petition.4. It is stated in para 2 to the petition that the respondent No. 3 is an Aided Institution which receives grant from the Government of India, through the Department of Atomic Energy. It is established for Advance Research in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Internal Audit-Cum-Administrative Office...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC168
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Sri Veer Singh Inter College, Babina, District Jalaun is a recognized by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The institution from Class I to XII is run in single premises by single Committee of Management.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai by which the DIOS has not given approval to the appointment of the petitioner in view of ban imposed by G.O. dated 20/1/1/91-Ka-2/97, dated 3.11.1997 and has informed that only the regional selection committee has power to make ad hoc appointment and the papers of the petitioner for approval have been returned.4. An advertisement dated 28.9.1997 was issued by the Manager of this institution in Dainik 'Lok Sarthi' said to have vide circulation in the area, for appointment of one L.T. Grade Teacher on ad hoc basis. He subm...
Tag this Judgment!General Medical Stores Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN412(All)
ORDERHeard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department.2. Petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur dated 27-12-2001, vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition. That order has been passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act.3. In the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax it has been mentioned that the assessing officer, on account of non-compliance of the assessee, was left with no alternative but to pass the order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act (best judgment assessment).4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was violation of the proviso to section 143 of the Income Tax Act. This point has not been mentioned in the impugned order. The presumption in law is that a court or Tribunal deals with all the points which have been urged before it and there is also a presumption that the point which has not been discussed by the court or Tribunal in its judgment w...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Tiwari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)1; [2004]265ITR224(All)
M. KATJU, J.1. This writ petition and connected writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner is challenging the validity of Notification dt. 25th Sept., 2001 (Annex.-1 to the writ petition), by which Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, was substituted by the Income-tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001 issued by the CBDT. The petitioner is also challenging the validity of Section 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 on the ground that it has delegated essential legislative powers and that it is violative of Articles 19(1) and 246 of the Constitution. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. It is alleged in para. 2 of the petition that the petitioner is an association of officers of Airport Authority of India.3. Before dealing with the controversy in this case, we may refer to Section 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act which states that for the purposes of Sections 15 and 16 and of that section perquisite includes 'value of any other fringe...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Yadav Vs. Contonment Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC294
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. These writ petitions are based on same facts and same questions of law are involved in all these writ petitions. Since in Writ Petition No. 7306 of 2003, detailed reply of the respondents covering the other two connected writ petitions has been filed by way of counter-affidavit, therefore, this writ petition is taken to be the leading case.2. The admitted facts in the above noted writ petitions are that the Cantonment Board, Varanasi, runs one Junior High School, one Boys Primary School and one Girls Primary School. The total strength of the teachers in all the three schools is 18 as under :(i) Junior High SchoolHead Master 1Assistant Teacher 3(ii) Boys Primary SchoolHead Master 1Assistant Teacher 8(iii) Girls Primary SchoolHead Master 1Assistant Teacher 43. Sri Uma Shanker Ram, Head Master and Sri G. K, Sharma, Assistant Teacher in Junior High School retired on 2.6.2001 and 31.5.2001 respectively. One of the vacancies of Head Masters was filled up by promotion of ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik San ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC159; (2004)1UPLBEC77
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.6.1987 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner No. 3, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., is a statutory body established under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as amended from time to time. Its Headquarter is at Allahabad. It is an examining body that holds Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations every year. As stated in paragraph 3 of the petition, these examinations are one of the biggest examinations conducted in the world. About 20 lacs students appear in the examinations conducted by the Board.4. It is alleged in para 4 of the petition that to take care of the handling of the examinations a large number of daily wage casual workers and labourers are engaged by the Board from time to time. These persons are engaged according to the exigencies of work in the office of the Board. These casual dally wage ...
Tag this Judgment!Malvika Shekhar Vs. Director, Higher Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC321
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's appointment dated 14.6.2003 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) shows that the petitioner was appointed on Mandeya (honorarium basis). The Mandeya (Honorarium basis) is a purely contractual appointment which confers the appointee no right as held by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Alok Singh v. State of U.P., 2002 (2) ESC 427. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.3. However, before parting this case, we are constrained to observe that a lot of cases are coming before us where we find that appointments have been made on Mandeya (Honorarium basis). The appointment of lecturers in the Degree/P.G. Colleges of the State can only be done in accordance with the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, as amended from time to time, and the rules and regulations made thereunder. There is no provision in that Act to make an appointment on Mandeya (Honorarium basis). In fact Section 12 of the Act s...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Kumar Saxena Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC52
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed praying following reliefs :(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of Memorandum dated 28.7.1992 and 20.8.1992, initiated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and pending before the respondent No. 3.(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings held so far against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 4.(3) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case.' 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Central Bank of India is one of the Nationalized Banks and is 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner joined as Clerk in the Central B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »