Allahabad Court October 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.
Amarawati and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC416; 2005CriLJ755; (2005)1UPLBEC155
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. This Full Bench is constituted to consider the following questions :1. Whether the arrest of an accused is a must if cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or in a criminal complaint;2. Whether the High Court can direct the Subordinate Courts to decide the Bail Application on the same day it is filed; and3. Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992, reported in 1995 (32) ACC 375, has been correctly decided by the five Judges Full Bench of this Court.2. In the case of Dr. Vinod Narain (Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992), it was held : 'For the reasons recorded separately this Full Bench unanimously holds that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions as the case may be, to consider the bail application time schedule for concluding the bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, the decision rendered in Dr. Hidayat Hussain Kh...
Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Gorakhpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All101; [2005(2)JCR593(All)]; (2005)1UPLBEC85
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This Bench has been constituted to decide the scope of the power of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short, the Act) in deciding the disputes with regard to rival Committees of Management, claiming actual control over the affairs of the recognized and aided educational institutions.2. In Writ Petition No. 35267/1992, Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, in the referring order dated 6.11.1992, a learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Division Bench decision in Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 402 (DB),and the decisions which have held that the Deputy Director of Education can go into the question of validity of the elections, needs to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27735/1995. Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, the question wi...
Ram Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1364; (2005)1UPLBEC78
K.K. Misra, J.1. In all the writ petitions validity of detention order dated 26.6.1999, on identical grounds under sub-section (2) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (briefly, the Act), with a view to preventing the detenus from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was challenged.2. The grounds of detention relate to an incident which had taken place on 9.6.99 in broad day light at 11.30 in which Upendra, son of Mam Chandra, was brutally murdered and Smt. Shanti, wife of Mam Chandra and Anand, brother-in- law of Mam Chandra were seriously injured. Case Crime No. 308 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act and case Crime No. 310 of 1999, under Section 25(4) of Arms Act, 1959 were registered at P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad. The detenue Ram Lal and Man Singh were arrested on the spot along with their respective weapons. The detention orders under chall...
Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC474
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.7.2004, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Aliahabad, respondent No. 3 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to restore the electricity connection in the shop of the petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner applied for an electricity connection on 27.5.2004 and after completion of the formalities and payment of necessary charges towards security money, meter charges etc. the electricity connection was sanctioned and energized on 27.6.2004. On 8.7.2004, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 3, passed an order disconnecting the electricity connection on the ground that the electricity connection was obtained by concealment of material fact and that a Court case was pending in relation to an electricity dispute, which had been deliberately concealed by the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the...
intzar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1675
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Challenge in this petition is the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.8.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) by which during pendency of the revision against the order of the appellate authority passed in the allotment of chak proceedings he granted stay to the revisionists to the effect that parties will maintain status quo and order dated 20.9.2004 by which order dated 17.8.2001 was confirmed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised four points for consideration which can be summarised thus :(1) Unless and until order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is implemented and delivery of possession takes place, stay order cannot be granted.(2) Even there may be a peculiar fact but the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot grant any stay.(3) Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act speaks about delivery of possession within a period of six months and if it is not done it has bee...
S.M.i. Kazim Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC297; (2005)2UPLBEC1362
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the General Manager dated 17.10.2001 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service and also for quashing the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, dated 2.9.2002 dismissing his appeal against the above order.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner while working as Manager of the Kanpur Regional Office in the New India Assurance Company Ltd., was found to have committed irregularities/misconduct in respect of approval of claims of the insured during the period 1996-1998. Accordingly, the General Manager, who was his disciplinary authority, decided to proceed against him departmentally. Consequently, the departmental proceeding was initiated vide office order dated 11.2.2000 and he was placed under suspension. The memo of charges alongwith list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary autho...
Mahender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)39; [2005]277ITR71(All)
1. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under Section 80I ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The applicant is an individual. He purchases yarn from the market and gives the same to the weavers to weave cloth as per his design. The cloth is then dyed and calendered. The applicant gets this work done on job basis from others. He does not have any factory or machinery of his own. During the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 he claimed deduction under Section 80I of the Act. The claim was rejected by the AO, which has been upheld by the AAC as also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that admittedly, the applicant has no manufacturing activity wherein he might be carrying on any manufacturing pro...
Tripathi Coal Brikets Industries Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC562
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :'(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to apply principle of MPQ (Maximum Permissible Quantity) in respect of supply of coal to the petitioner unit by virtue of linkage order allowed by Coal India Ltd., and sponsorship issued by Director of Industries U.P.(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect of the order passed by Competent/ Sponsoring Authority of State of U.P. and the linkage allowed by Coal India Ltd., in respect of supply of full linked/sponsored quantity of 3500 MT coal per month as has been held by Patna High Court passed in civil writ jurisdiction case No. 2750 of 1997 (R) (contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and modified and affirmed by Apex Court's order passed in civil appeal No. 6317 of 1998...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishi Disc. P. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR113(All)
R.K. Agrawal J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that a new industrial undertaking for manufacture of knives and come into existence and was entitled to Section 80J deduction for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 14,445 and Rs. 20,530 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 on account of Central excise duty liability ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee was manufacturing and selling discs and knives. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The respondent claimed deduction under Sectio...
Mahender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN617(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court:-' 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under section 80I(2)2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present-reference are as follows:-'The applicant is an individual. He purchases yarn from the market and gives the same to the weavers to weave cloth as per his design. The cloth is then dyed and calendered. The applicant gets this work done on job basis from others. He does not have any factory or machinery of his own. During the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 he claimed deduction under section 80I of the Act. The claim was rejected by the assessing officer, which has been upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that adm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »