Allahabad Court January 2004 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.
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]139STC380(All)
M. Katju, J.1. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal and Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus/ prohibition restraining the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) 1, Trade Tax, Bareilly, from realising any tax under Section 3-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, for the assessment year 2000-01 and for quashing the order dated March 31, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 vide annexure 4 to the writ petition so far as it relates to the imposition of tax under Section 3-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the purchase of furnace oil and RFO and used in the manufacture of camphor and allied products.4. It is alleged in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioner is a public limited company and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of camphor and other allied products. The p...
Ratan Industries (Pvt.) Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]148STC111(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by notice dated January 16, 2003 (vide annexure 8 to the writ petition) under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal and Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of C.I. Castings, M.S. castings, parts and accessories of animal driven vehicles, vide paragraph 2 of the writ petition.4. As alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition by Notification No. 7038 dated January 31, 1985 issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 the animal drawn carts, their parts and accessories, attachment, etc., have been exempted from payment of tax...
Pashupati Singh and Co. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (i) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR661]
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Present writ petition had been filed by M/s Pashupati Singh and Company Contractor at M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd., Phoolpur, Allahabad assailing the validity of the award passed against them by Industrial Tribunal U.P. at Allahabad dated 3.7.1989.2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, is that petitioner entered into contract with M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd., Phoolpur, Allahabad for loading and unloading Urea bags for the period starting 1.9.1980 to 31.8.1981. Petitioner for getting the job for loading and unloading of aforementioned Urea bags, appointed contractor who are commonly known as Petty Contractors to perform the job of loading and unloading of Urea bags and the petitioners used to pay to the Petty Contractors is per bills raised by them and petitioner in his term realised as part of the bills from aforementioned Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd., Phoolpur, Allahabad. Petitioner conte...
Sunita Diwedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC812; (2004)1UPLBEC700
ORDERM. Katju and Poonam Srivastava, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission as well as learned standing counsel.2. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner has been selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission as Lecturer in Hindi for Agra College, Agra, The recommendation of the Higher Education Service Commission dated 17.6.2003 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.3. In pursuance of letter dated 17.6.2003, the petitioner submitted his joining before the Principal, Agra College, Agra, who is also Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College on 24.7.2003, but she has not yet been allowed to join there. True copies of the joining reports are Annexures-3 and 4.4. We are distressed to note that although the recommendation, which is in favour of petitioner, was sent by the Commission to the Director, Higher Education, U.P. in June, 2003 the petitioner has not yet bee...
Jay Shree Tea Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-i and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC959
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public sector company, and Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products as well as Sri R. P. Verma, a share holder in Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., to declare Section 6W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as constitutionally bad and invalid, violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enforce the provisions of Section 6W of the Act against the petitioners. The prayer No. 3 is for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 26.2.1987 published on 5.3.1987, by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1987 (between Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products and its workmen), and also the order of the State Government dated 29.9.1986 passed under Section 6W of the Act.2. The writ petition was heard and allowed, along with other connected petitions, by this Court on 28.3.1990. T...
Omvir Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC897
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The State of U.P. acquired land for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) by notification issued on 6.1.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act). The notification under Section 6 was issued on 22.9.1992 and possession was taken on 18.3.1994. Various objections of tenure holders were decided by a common award under Section 11 of the Act on 31.1.2001. While deciding the objection No. 24 filed by the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 6, it was observed by the Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition), Noida (in brief the A.D.M.) that the objections were separately being heard and would be decided on merits and orders for payment of compensation would be passed. On 19.10.2001 on the basis of report of Tehsildar, Dadri, District Ghaziabad, the A.D.M. decided the objections and held that the petitioners and respondents No 3 to 6 are recorded in revenue records on half share each, therefore, he directed payment of half...
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify...
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1087
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 5.11.1999 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) which was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, with further prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly along with arrears with effect from 1.12.1978.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner post of Principal in the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Inter College, Dhanuwan, Etawah had fallen vacant on account of retirement of Sri Vishram Singh on 30.6.1996. One senior most Lecturer Sri Ram Pal Singh was appointed as ad hoc Principal. In these circumstances, short term vacancy arose and one Sri Agent Singh who was senior most L.T. grade teacher was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis to the short term vacancy in the L.T. grade. However, for fu...
Mohd. Asif and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1086
ORDERM. Katju and Poonam Srivastava, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery which has been issued in pursuance of the assessment order under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997.3. The validity of the provisions of the aforesaid Act has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vidya Gupta v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2003 (1) UPTC. The aforesaid decision has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Sandhya Singh v. Taxation Officer-1, R.T.O., Mirzapur and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 32 of 2003 (Tax), decided on 16.1.20O3.4. Against the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners filed S.L.P. in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5.12.2002 (Annexure-32 to the writ petition) reads as follows :'Permission to file S.L.P. granted.Issue notice. No stay.'5. Thus, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that it is not a fit case for staying the recovery. ...
Modern Metal Industries and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanti Parolia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All227; 2004(2)ARBLR411(All); 2004(2)AWC1110; [2004]54SCL240(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. What is the valuation of the appeal for the purposes of the jurisdiction is the primal question involved presently?2. Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 defines jurisdiction of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Courts. A single Judge under Rule 2 of the Chapter has a limited pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of the various kinds of appeal or as mentioned therein up to but not exceeding 5 lakhs or one lakh rupees as the case may be. All other appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.3. As the aforesaid question is required to be answered keeping in view of the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1996, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Court Fees Act as amended in U. P., it is not necessary to take into consideration factual matrix of the matter in great detail. Facts relevant to question, involved are discussed here.4. This appeal has been reported by the stamp reporter as cognizable by single Judge on the basis that the valuation of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »