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.
Jit and Pal X-rays (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN62(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J. This is an Income-tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion.'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 9,812 is not admissible deduction for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee is an 'industrial company' under section 7 of the Finance Act, 1979 ?'2. Heard learned counsel for the partiesThe relevant assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee is a private limited company which was incorporated on 6-10-1977. By a sale deed dated 12-11-1977, the assessee took over the running business of M/s. Jit & Pal X-Ray Bhuri Wave & Diagnostic Laboratory, which was being run under the sole proprietorship of Dr. Harnam, Singh. The consideration fixed was Rs. 96,192 which is mentioned in the sale deed. The p...
K.S. Kashyap Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3385; (2004)1UPLBEC55
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.9.2000 (Annexure-6 to the petition).3. The petitioner was employed in the Railway and was posted at D.L.W., Varanasi. From 15.10.1987 he was absent without leave. The authorities repeatedly asked him to report for work but he did not come. It is stated in the letter dated 20.1.1989 that the petitioner also did not contact the department and did not send any information. Hence by the said order dated 20.1.1989, he was removed from service. He filed a mercy appeal which was decided by order dated 11.8.1995 (Annexure-2 to the petition). In that order it is stated that his removal on 20.1.1989 does not call for any change, but taking a compassionate view of the matter a compassionate allowance of Rs. 700 per month was sanctioned to him. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has rejected his petition, henc...
Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3450; JT2000(Suppl1)SC295
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondents. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit, the same will be taken on record.2. It appears that respondent No. 4, namely, Karan Singh, had made some sort of complaint dated 3rd of August, 2003 addressed to the District Magistrate, Allgarh with regard to the irregularities made in distribution of the scholarship meant for the purposes of students belonging to Scheduled Caste studying in Class I to V in Primary Pathahsla, Khitkari, Jalali, Vikas Khand Dhanipur, district Aligarh. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner, who is Pradhan of the village concerned, is responsible for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 40,800, therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2003 has been passed by Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Aligarh directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,800 w...
Syed Nazir Abbas Naqvi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC90
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 6.12.2001, made by Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad awarding punishment of reversion from the post of Upper Division Assistant to the next lower post of Junior Division Assistant; a censure entry and withholding of his integrity as well as order dated 2.8.2002, by which his appeal has been dismissed by principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow.2. Petitioner was appointed as paid apprentice in Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad on 16.8.1993 and thereafter as Lower Division Assistant vide promotion order dated 24.8.1984. He was promoted as Assistant Superintendent, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow on 13.5.1998. Petitioner, however, did not join on the promoted post and requested that he may be continued at Allahabad and was allowed to continue as Upper Division Assistant in Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. Disciplinary proceedings giving rise to this petit...
Habib Ahmad Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1683
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 6.4.2002 and 15.5.2002 (Annexures-15 and 17 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 1 respectively and further for quashing the order declaring the vacancy dated 2.6.2000 (Annexure-11) and for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Pratapgarh not to evict the petitioner from his house in compliance of the order dated 6.4.2002 passed by the opposite party No. 2.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the tenant of Kothari situated in Mohalla Begum Ward at Pratapgarh numbered by the Municipal Board as House No. 110. The opposite party No. 3 has started saying that the petitioner is the tenant of Kothari No. 111 and Smt. Prabhawati is the tenant of Kothari No. 110 and moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Pratapgarh s...
Ram Niwas Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3377
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandcy, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 29.1.1979, Annexure--5 to the writ petition.2. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 13.8.1970, Annexure-4 to the petition.3. The petitioner was a constable in the U. P. Police and grave charges were levelled against him. The charge-sheet dated 23.1.1965 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, the copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said charge-sheet shows that the allegation against him was that while posted at police station Gopiganj district Varanasi from 9.7.1964 to 21.2.1965, the petitioner had criminal association with criminals like Sri Ahir, Ibrahim, etc. and they committed crimes with his complicity. On 21.2.1965 at about noon or just after that the petitioner was seen in the company of the said Ibrahim an...
Om Prakash Mann Vs. Director of Education (Basic) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3442; (2004)1UPLBEC187
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 9.8.1989 and 22.2.1992, Annexures-18 and 21 to the writ petition passed by opposite parties No. 2 and 1 respectively.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master in Swami Kalyan Deo Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Garhi Navabad, Muzaffarnagar on 22.10.1984. After the approval was granted by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide its order dated 9.8.1989 the Manager by its order-dated 11.8.1989 terminated the services of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 22.2.1992.4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a three member enquiry committee constituted under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 4 was illegal, as the Chairman-respondent No. 4 was highly inimical to the petitioner being a witness in the enquiry and tha...
Harold William Vs. Xth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC132
S.U. Khan, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition against whom suit for ejectment has been decreed by both the courts below mainly on the ground of denial of title as provided under Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 147 of 1986 and was decreed by Additional J.S.C.C., Bareilly on 27.2.1991. Revision filed by the tenant petitioner numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 10 of 1991 was dismissed by Xth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, through judgment and order dated 8.7.1994. This writ petition is directed -against the aforesaid judgment and decree.2. According to the plaint, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition the defendant was allottee of the house in dispute through an allotment order dated 28.3.1980 obtained in collusion with the previous tenant Ram Chandra who is close relative of the defendant. It has further been stated in the plaint that father of the plaintiff Albert Singh filed a suit for specific performance of an agreeme...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishore Chand Shivcharan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR37(All)
1. This is an income-tax 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 the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claims of the assessee for deduction on account of dues demanded by the Electricity Board for earlier years, which have not yet been fully ascertained and also had been all along disputed by the assessee, could be allowed in the assessment year 1976-77 specially when the assessee observed the mercantile system of accounts and had made no provision in the years of demands ?'2. We have carefully perused the appellate order of the Tribunal and find no illegality in the same. The claim of deduction of the petitioner was in respect of dues demanded by the U. P. State Electricity Board. The assessee disputed the amount claimed by the Board and the liability was yet to be ascertained in the relevant assessment year, which is 1976-77.3. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly held th...
Smt. Urmila Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1009
Jagdish Bhalla and P.K. Chatterji, JJ.1. By the order dated 16th September, 2003, we have dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the reasons will be recorded later on. Now, we proceed to record the reasons.2. Petitioner in this writ petition has inter alia prayed for quashing the notification dated 5.7.2003 issued by the State Government so far as it relates to creation of new route, i.e., Fatehpur-Patti Shah via Hussainganj-Mawai-Chhiblaha-Aara Machine-Narauli.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government is not competent to create route for plying of vehicles on the principles and formula laid down by the State Government. As a matter of fact, under the aforesaid provisions, the State Transport Authority is empowered to formulate new routes and in no manner this power vests in the State Government.4. Inviting our attention to the provisions of Sections 67 and 68 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »