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.
Cit Vs. Janta Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN402(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right to cancel the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that the process of manufacture was there in the cold storage ?'Briefly stated the facts involved in the present case are as under:2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The respondent-assessee runs a cold storage. It claimed a benefit of deduction under section 80HH of the Act which was allowed by the Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax on an examination of the relevant records came to the conclusion that the deduction under section 80HH of the Act was not permissible. He accordingly initiated proceedings under section ...
Ashwani Kumar JaIn Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(180)ELT155(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These three writ petitions arise of a common order dated 25-6-2001 passed by Respondent No. 1 on three applications, each filed by each of the petitioners in respect of three appeals pending before Respondent No. 1. The facts are identical and the above petitions were heard together. Therefore it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain claims himself the Managing Director of M/s. Agemo Leather Components (P) Ltd. and Director of M/s. Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd. According to the petitioners they are engaged in export of ready-made garments and electronic wrist watches etc. The export worth Rs. 13 crores was made by M/s. Agemo Leather Component (P) Ltd. during the period 27-6-1998 to 29-8-1998. Similarly, M/s. Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd. made export from 1-12-1997 to 31-8-1998 of around Rs. 27 crores. The further allegation is that these amounts were received through Banker.3. On getting information, the Central Excise Preventi...
Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi (Dr.) Vs. Rajyapal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC105; (2005)1UPLBEC77
M. Katju, A.C.J., Sunil Ambwani and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. This Full Bench has been constituted in pursuance of the reference made by a Division Bench dated 22.4.2002 since the Division Bench felt that there was a conflict of opinion between two earlier Division Benches in A.K. Kalia v. Chancellor, Lucknow University, 1995(2) AWC 832 and M.P. Joshi v. University of Kumaon, Nainital, (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2459.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The question in this case is about interpretation of the clause (7) of Statute 11.12-B of the 1st Statute of Gorakhpur University. Clause (7) reads as follows :'Personal promotion on the post of Reader or Professor as the case may be shall take effect from the date of taking over charge of the said post.'4. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that clause (7) has to be read alongwith clause (4) of the Statute 11.12-B which states :'The Se...
Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC500; (2005)1UPLBEC101
M. Katju, A.C.J., Sunil Ambwani and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Full Bench has been constituted in pursuance of reference order of the Division Bench dated 21.4.1998 in Writ Petition No. 12718 of 1998, Sheshmani and Ors. v. State of U.P. and others, in which the Division Bench was of the view that the decision of the Division Bench in Sushil Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P- and others, (1995) SPLBEC 1862 should be reconsidered.3. In Writ Petition No. 12718 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 19.3.1998 Annexures 6 to 10 of the writ petition.4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners was promoted from the post of Inspector to Dy. Superintendent of Police in U.P. without consulting the U.P. Public Service Commission. However, subsequently in view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision in Sushil Chandra Srivastava's case (supra), the impugned reversion orders were passed which have been challenged in this wri...
R.B. Dixit Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC83
M. Katju, A.C.J., Sunil Ambwani and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The controversy in this case is whether the retirement age of an employee of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is 60 years or 62 years.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Yatindra has invited our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54346 of 2000, Raja Ram Verma v. Union of India, decided on 10.7.2002 vide Annexure 13 to the writ petition. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision in Raja Ram Verma's case (supra) and we respectfully disagree with the same. Section 13(2) of the Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961 states 'Subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, all appointments to post under the Institute shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period of one year after which period the appointee if confirmed shall continue to hold his office subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, till the e...
Avanish Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC668
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ram Krishna Mishra on behalf of the petitioner, Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Anil Tiwari on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.2. The petitioner, after obtaining degree of graduation applied as a candidate in the entrance examination for B.Ed. 2003-04 conducted by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. According to the advertisement the last date for submission of the application was 16.4 .2003. In the Rules framed by the University for regulating admission to B.Ed. course under Clause 12 it was mentioned that along with the form the candidate shall also enclose copy of the certificate on the basis whereof he is seeking benefit of weightage marks. In Clause '19-Anga' it was provided that the wards of teachers of the institution will be entitled to weightage of 15 marks subject to the condition that the certificate of being the ward of a teacher must be counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools/District Basic Educati...
Chandra Bhan Urf Palu Vs. Director of Higher Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC1026
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard R.D. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. Petitioner has admittedly been granted admission in B.Sc. Part III (single subject only). The petitioner has been restrained from contesting the election of the student union of Bareilly College, Bareilly in view of the provisions regulating the elections of the Union as framed by the institution, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Clause 20 of the aforesaid rules provides that a candidate admitted in a single subject shall not be treated to be a regular student. It has further been provided that a student obtaining admission in a single subject may be permitted by the Principal of the institution to undertake practical classes also, however, the said permission would not amount to petitioner being treated as a regular student.3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that he has deposited the requisite fee and has also been...
Rail Vihar Kalyan Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All86; 2005(1)AWC682
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri Arvind Srivastava for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar (in short, the NOIDA).2. The petitioners are Welfare Societies/ Co-operative Housing Societies, and individual member of these societies. The writ petitions are directed against the letters issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA dated 13-11-2002 and 7-1-2003 by which the NOIDA has directed the individual members to execute a tripartite deed with the Welfare Societies/Co-operative Housing Societies as the lessees, and NOIDA, as the lessor, for sale of the superstructure and sub lease deed for the respective flats apartments, residential accommodations, allotted by the societies to its individual members; and for restraining the respondents from charging any stamp duty on the execution of such tripartite deed.3. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are stated as below :--In Writ Petition N...
Brij Lal (Deceased) Through L.R. and ors. Vs. Ram Surat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1613
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second civil appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1979 arising out in Regular Suit No. 210 of 1977 decided by the Munsif North, Sultanpur by the judgment and order dated 9.2.1979.2. I have heard Shri U. S. Sahai, holding brief of Shri H. S. Sahai for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan for the respondents.3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for demolition, possession and injunction with respect to the land in dispute claiming ownership rights through Dukhi and Rameshwar. It is alleged that Dukhi and Rameshwar were real brothers and house situate towards north of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs are the daughter and son of the Rameshwar who pre-deceased Dukhi. According to the plaintiffs, Dukhi executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs before the date of vesting with respect to the land in dispute ...
Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]62SCL11(All)
1. In these three writ petitions, filed by M/s. Modi Industries Limited, the petitioner challenges the demand notices issued by the then U.P. State Electricity Board (now known as U.P. Power Corporation Limited) for payment of dues towards the electricity charges for the period mentioned in respective demand notices.2. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.N. Mathur is that the petitioner industry has already been declared sick industry under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by the BIFR on 14-3-1991 and, therefore, unless permission is taken from the Board, no coercive steps could have been taken by the petitioner for realization of electricity dues in view of Section 22(1) of the aforesaid Act. In support of the argument learned counsel further urged that as per the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Sick Companies Act) no proceedings for the win...