Allahabad Court September 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.
Manjula Kumar (Dr.) (Smt.) Vs. Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Pholey, Roh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC50
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Chancellor dated 5.9.2003 vide Annexure 21.2. Heard Counsel for the parties.3. Admittedly, a reference under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act is pending before the Chancellor. We have repeatedly held in several Division Bench decisions that the Chancellor has got power to pass an interim order pending final decision in a reference under Section 68 as that is inherent in Section 68 of the aforesaid Act.'4. We are surprised to note that the Chancellor in the impugned order dated 5.9.2003 (Annexure 21 to the writ petition) has observed, that he has no power to grant an interim order. We are constrained to observe, that even the Chancellor is not above the law. When we have declared the law repeatedly in several Division Bench decisions e.g., P.G. Chaudhari v. The Chancellor, 1987 UPLBEC 720, Writ Petition No. 48670/2002, Committee of Management, Sarvoday P.G. College, Jhansi v. D.I.O.S., decide...
JaIn Brass Rolling Mills and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC429(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of prohibition against the Sales Tax Officer (now known as Trade Tax Officer), Sector-3, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, restraining him from completing the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a firm registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1973-74 assessment order was passed on December 31, 1979 by the Sales Tax Officer, both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed it and remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Officer. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the department filed a second appeal under Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The same happened in assessment year...
Cit Vs. Beni Prasad Halwasia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN86(All)
This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was wholly justified in holding that no capital gains arose to the assessee during the previous years for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ?'2. We have carefully perused the Tribunals Appellate order. In our opinion the Tribunal has rightly hold that the cost of acquisition of the land is to be its costs in the year 1967 at the price at which it was allotted by the Development Authority and not the price of the year 1954.3. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Tribunal, we therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
United Steel Industries Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(168)ELT439(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 16-9-1999 by which the Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, hereinafter referred to as Act.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Iron Bars. During the relevant period, the petitioner had cleared 559.535 M.T. of Iron bars. The petitioner claimed exemption under the Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 2-5-1988 as amended time to time on the ground that in puts used in the manufacture was deemed to have been duty paid in view of the explanation to the notification. The Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur vide order dated 4-3-1998 confirmed the demand of excise duty of Rs. 5,46,626/- on the clearance of Iron bars. The Addl. Commissioner had observed that the party had never declared the source of purchase to the Department nor produced any duty paying documents to establish their case. He, further, observed that the pa...
Ejaz Ahmad and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC236; 2005ACJ1421; 2003(4)AWC3412
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 30.3.1995, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat, by which the claimant's appeal was allowed and sum of Rs. 22,000 was awarded against the appellants who are the owner of the vehicle and driver.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the vehicle, namely, tempo No. U.P.-77/9493. On 2.10.1991, at about 5 p.m. Km. Rubi was going on a dipper (footpath) along with his brother Vinod when a tempo No. U.P.-77/9493 on account of negligence and rash driving of the driver without giving any horn dashed Km. Rubi with the result she had fallen and suffered fracture in her left leg. Tribunal on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances awarded a sum of Rs. 22.000 to the claimant against the appellants. The claim of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insuran...
Aditya Narayan Singh Vs. State Election Commission and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3384
ORDERM. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. N. Rai learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent-State Election Commission to re-allocate the work of the Commission amongst the standing counsels of the Commission by just reasonable, fair order of allocation of work of the Commission and further not insist upon the petitioner to handover the files of pending cases to another counsel and to pay the unpaid past expenses of the certified copies of the final orders, and fee etc.3. In our view, it is the discretion of the client to choose his counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Damodardass Aqarwal and Ors. v. Badrilal and Ors., AIR 1987 AP 254 (DB), in which it was held that the leave of the Court is necessary for the client for terminating the appointment of his advocate. We respec...
Ahmad Jameel and anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC122
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. By the consent of the parties' counsels this writ petition is being finally decided at this stage without inviting counter-affidavit.3. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.6.2001, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moradabad in Case No. 336 of 2001 and the order dated 18.7.2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad, dismissing the Revision No. 62 of 2002-2003 filed by the petitioners under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.4. Petitioners' case as mentioned in the writ petition is that they were granted lease by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1381F, and since then the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute. Petitioners further alleged that they are regularly paying the rent and their names are also recorded in the records of rights, Petitioners have further claimed that they have become bhumidhar...
Mannu Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1005
ORDERU.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard Miss. Renu Misra holding brief of Sri P.K. Srivastava and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.2. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29.6.2002 by which the petitioners were directed not to sign the attendance register after 30.6.2002.3. The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the petitioners were working as Assistant Teacher Basic. The date of birth of the petitioners is 1.7.1942, and as the petitioners were completing 60 years of age on 30.6.2002, the said order dated 29.6.2002, which is under challenge in the instant petition was issued by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the interim order dated 3.7.2002 all the petitioners have worked till 30.6.2003. She further submits that academic session starts from 1st May and it ends on 30th April in the next following calendar year. She further submits that in acco...
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Xiith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1034
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.1994 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 24 of 1993. Smt. Rashida Khatoon v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal allowing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act').2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3.3. The petitioner is the tenant in a shop in House No. 261/64-Billauch Pura Road, Sarai Agha Meer, Lucknow belonging to the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The case of the opposite party No. 3 as stated in the release petition is that Izhar Ahmad the elder son of the landlady, the opposi...
Gas Authority of India Through Its Deputy General Manager Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC73
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31.7.2003.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The learned Single Judge has passed the judgment on the basis of the judgment dated 4.2.2000 in Writ petition No. 607 of 1995, Ram Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In that judgment (the judgment dated 4.2.2000), reliance has been placed on a Government Order of the State Government, which provides grant of a job to one member of the family of the person whose land has been acquired.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Government Order of the State Government is not binding on the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned and control by the Central Government and it had, never agreed to comply with the Government Order dated 15.6.85 issued by the State Government vide Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit in the writ petition. He has also submitted that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »