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.
Sevendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3066
Sunit Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan for petitioners in first two writ petitions, and Sri S.C. Misra for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22340 of 2003 ; and Sri H.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.2. The matter relates to selections for Group 'C' posts for which advertisement was issued by District Magistrate, Jyotibaphule Nagar on 30.8.2001. The advertisement included 15 posts of Junior Clerks and 2 posts of Stenographers for appointment at Collectorate and the Offices of District Supply Officer. Jyotibaphule Nagar, All petitioners namely seven petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18789 of 2003 ; Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Verma in Writ Petition No. 21069 of 2003, and petitioner Sri Pankaj Dixit in Writ Petition No. 22340 of 2003 were eligible and applied. Whereas first six petitioners in first writ petition, belong to O.B.C. category, petitioner No. 7 belong to general category. The written examinations were hel...
Ramdeo and ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC115
S. N. Srivastava, J.1. Nucleus of attention in this petition is the order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Ghazipur, dated 30.7.2003 (Annexure-4 to the petition). The grievance of the petitioner in assailing this order is that the order dated 26.7.2003 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner weighed with the Deputy Director Consolidation, Ghazipur, who recalled the interim order passed in the revision and directed the subordinate authorities to carve out the chaks and deliver possession in obedience to the judgment of the appellate court.2. The dispute has its genesis in the fact that the authorities marked excessive value of certain land situate in village Rampur pargana Khanpur Tahsil Saidpur district Ghazipur which were uncultivable and unproductive. The petitioners having met their Waterloo in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation preferred revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation followed by application fo...
Gajraj Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC125
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is focused on the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bulandshahr by which the aforesaid authority amended the schedule and disposed of the revision without recording reasons in vindication of his conclusions.2. The facts constituting grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director Consolidation has erroneously pruned the area of plots of the petitioner ostensibly to size it up to the permissible extent of 25% by magnifying valuation of the plots 78/1, 78/2, 78/3 and 78/3 from 10 paise to 40 paise, from 10 paise to 30 paise and 10 paise to 30 paise and from 20 paise to 50 paise respectively. It would transpire from the record that initially, the petitioner was holding Chak No. 201. During consolidation operation, he was proposed two chafes. The first chak comprising in plot No. 545 which was the chak not forming part of his original plot. The second chak was proposed on his original holding, i.e.,...
Cit Vs. Jahanganj Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN321(All)
In this case, Sri RK Gulati was counsel for the assessee. He was elevated to the Bench and thereafter retired. On 10-12-2002, notice was issued to the assessee to engage another counsel. The office note dated 23-6-2003 states that neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has returned back after service. Hence, in view of the Explanation-II to Chapter VIII, rule 12 of the High Court Rules, service is deemed sufficient.2. This is a 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 Tribunal was justified in holding that while computing the capital of the undertaking with reference to which the relief under section 80J should be computed the Income Tax Officer should not have deducted the borrowed capital from the value of the gross assets as worked out in terms of sub-rule (2) of the rule 19A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?3. The facts of the ca...
Cit Vs. Fertilizer Agencies
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN89(All)
1. This is a 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,91,296 on account of excess price of fertilizers had not accrued to the assessee and could not, therefore, be treated as its income for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The question referred is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath : [1988]171ITR417(All) .3. Following the decision, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Suraj Prakash Kunchal and Sons Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN172(All)
1. This is a 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the partial partition claimed by the assessee is not valid?'2. The question referred is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Apporva Shantilal Shah v. CIT : [1983]141ITR558(SC) , in which it was held that partial partition with unequal share is valid.3. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Ravi Iron Industries Vs. Director of Investigation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)8; 2005(191)ELT105(All); [2003]264ITR28(All)
Prakash Krishna J.1. The petitioner, Ravi Iron Industries, is a proprietorship concern which has challenged the legality and validity of the search conducted by the Income-tax Department at the factory of the petitioner on February 16, 2000, and has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the search memo/punchanama dated February 26, 2000, and all the proceedings pursuant to and consequential to the said search. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner, consequent upon or arising out of the above search has also been sought for. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of C. I. pipe fittings and main-holds. The petitioner is also a registered licensee under the Central Excise Act and has to maintain detailed records as prescribed under the said Act and the rules concerning purchases, utilisation and stock of raw material, production, clearance and stock of finished goods, e...
Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, I.O. Ban ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3055; (2004)IILLJ119All
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11.1.2003, passed by the respondent No. 1, Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. (Annexure-10 to the petition). Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's option/ application for I.O.B. Officers/ Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is presently working as Chief Manager (Scale-IV) in Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Branch, Allahabad. The date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1949. Thus, he has completed over 53 years of age. The petitioner joined the service of the bank on 26.10.1970 and had been working as Chief Manager (Scale-IV) since 1998.4. In para 4 of the petition. It is stated that the petitioner's service as Chief Manager (Scale-IV) has been appreciated by his superior authorities in view of his sincerity and honesty throughout. In...
Ajay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3078
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel in opposition of this writ petition. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein. It is not necessary to invite a counter-affidavit.2. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that it does notcontain any reason as to why the petitioner has been found disentitled for grant of firearm's license.3. In view of the Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which clearly provides that if the licensing authority refuses to grant license, it must record its reason. Section 14(3) is reproduced below :'(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a license to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any ease the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.'4. In view of this mandatory provisions the order dated 4.1.2003, (Annexur...
Ashok Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC129; (2004)1UPLBEC119
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. That the provisions of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1947) and of the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1950) are applicable for the recruitment of the Ministerial Staff including the stenographers of the subordinate civil courts in Uttar Pradesh.3. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1947, lay down that the Stenographers should form a separate cadre. It is alleged in the petition that separate applications were invited in the year 1997-98 for the recruitment of 27 Clerks in Grade-III and 6 Stenographers (Hindi) in the Judgeship of district Hamirpur.4. Since the post of Clerks in Grade-III and that of stenographers (Hindi) form a separate cadre, the petitioner applied separately for both the posts. Holding of the examination for the recru...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »