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.
Chandrika Prasad Shukla Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC377; (2004)1UPLBEC434
Vineet Saran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.2.1991 passed by the Director of Education and also for a direction to pay to the petitioner arrears of salary of Lecturer of Sociology since 1973 up-to-date.2. The facts in brief relevant for adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as L.T. grade teacher in Shaheed Ram Chandra Inter College, Basantpur Dhusi, Tarkulwa, district Deoria on 8.7.1967. It is stated that in 1968 the subject of Sociology was for the first time recognised as a subject for Intermediate in the college, and from 1968 to 1974 one Sri S. K. Misra was teaching Sociology on ad hoc arrangement. The petitioner claims that in June, 1973, when he passed his M.A. in Sociology, the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 15th June, 1973 resolved to fill up the post of Lecturer in Sociology by promotion under the 40% quota. A dispute between the rival contenders for the control over the Committ...
Kripa Shanker Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC124
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2003, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned suspension order dated 20th August, 2003.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners have been put under suspension by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the power under the provisions of Rule 17(1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment of Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1991).3. the suspension order has been passed on very serious allegations that petitioners had been extorting money from the Truck Drivers on 19th/20th August, 2003, while they had been on a Patrolling Duty. The order of suspension provides that the Circle Officer, Gyanpur, Bhadohi shall hold a preliminary enquiry and submit the report within a period of one week. Writ petition was filed challenging the said order on the ground that during the pendency of t...
Jitendra S/O Sri Rajendra Nath Mishra (In Jail) Vs. Dist. Magistrate a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2967
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Jitendra alias Jeetu Misra has impugned the detention order dated 2-9-2002, passed by Mr. R.S. Verma, District Magistrate, Barabanki (opposite party No. 1) detaining him under Section 3(2) of The National Security Act.2. The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 2-9-2002, was served on the petitioner detenu on 4-9-2002 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.3. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu impelling the 1st opposite party (the District Magistrate, Barabanki) to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2). Since, in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication of the pleadings contained in para 16 of the petition and those contained in ground F and I of para 26 ther...
R.P. Pandey Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC3110
Pradeep Kant and Kamal Kishore, JJ.1. The petitioner R.P. Pandey, who was working as Deputy General Manager in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has filed Writ Petition No. 734 (SB) of 2002, challenging the order of his compulsory retirement said to have been passed in exercise of the powers under Regulations 2(b) and 2(c)(i) of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Retirement of UPSEB Employees) Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1975).2. The arguments at considerable length have been raised by both the parties but the controversy revolves around the following two questions, namely, (i) whether the petitioner be relegated to the remedy of U.P. Public Services Tribunal and in the presence of such remedy, the writ petition is maintainable or not and; (ii) whether the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated, as the adverse material in the shape of certain adverse entries or certain minor punishments stood wiped of in ...
Cit Vs. Seth Madan Lal Modi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN323(All)
This is an Income Tax Reference under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, in which two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified both on facts and in law in holding the perquisite value in respect of accommodation in Modi Bhavan at Rs. 2,911 as against Rs. 10,000 adopted by the Income Tax Officer2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified both on facts and in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,952 representing remuneration from Modipon Ltd. was not taxable by ignoring the material fact that there was a resolution in this regard for payment of such remuneration?'2. The first question referred is covered by a decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Smt. Dayawati Modi : [2003]259ITR375(Delhi) . We respectfully agree with the decision of the Delhi High Court and decide the first question in favour...
Cit Vs. Vajid Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN96(All)
ORDER1. This is the reference under section 256(2) 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 upholding Appellate Assistant Commissioners order allowing weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act on salary to others, salary to directors, rent and postages, telegrams and trunk calls ?'2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the department has relied on the decision of the Division Bench CIT v. Noor Handicrafts : [2000]245ITR309(All) in which this court has held that it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to allow the claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act on the expenditure incurred on salaries, stationery, rent and postage without examining the nature of each item of expenditure and considering whether the claim fell under any one or more of the clauses of section 35B(1)(b) of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›