Allahabad Court November 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.
Vibha Ratan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1654; 2005(2)ESC1069; [2005(104)FLR231]
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri K.P. Agrawal Senior Advocate assisted by Miss Bushra Maryam for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Verma learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Affidavits have been exchanged by the parties and with the consent of parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 6.11.2003 published on 28.4.2004 of the Industrial Tribunal, U.P. Allahabad. Brief facts in the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition are :3. Respondent No. 4 is a trust, namely, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund which was constituted for the purpose of promoting various activities which were dear to the heart of Jawaharlal Nehru and any other activities in furtherance of his ideals, including such activities as would conduce to the general welfare and uplift of the poor and service of the oppressed. The object of the trust are enumerated in Clause 2 of trust deed. S...
Jai Prakash Associates P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR193(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following five questions of law. The first three at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and remaining two at the instance of the assessee 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 the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to allow investment allowance under Section 32A ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the machinery employed by the assessee entitles the assessee to investment allowance within the meaning of Section 32A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting disallowance of Rs. 99,180 and holding that the provision of Rule 3(c) of the Companies (Acceptance ...
Tanda Textiles and Processing Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC440
Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi and Sri Rahul Srivastava, holding brief of Sri U. P. Singh, advocate on behalf of the respondent-Power Corporation.2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, we would like to remind one and all that the decision in the writ petitions are taken on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. Affidavits so filed, form pleadings and the basis for deciding the lis between the contesting parties. Due sanctity has to be attached to the affidavits and it is the bounden duty of the learned Counsel appearing in the matters and particularly those who are drafting the petition to put correct facts on record and assist the Court truthfully, honestly and legally by placing all facts into the affidavits, which are relevant and are necessary for either raising a dispute or deciding an issue or for getting a judgment from the Court. Tendency is fast developing of bringing such facts on rec...
Abdul Salam (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Sirazul Rehman (Dece ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2778
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1983, passed by the Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri allowing the plaintiff-respondents' appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1983 dismissing the plaintiff-respondents' suit for possession.2. I have heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents on the substantial questions of law formulated in the memo of the appeal.3. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the disputed house alongwith a decree of damage at the rate of Rs. 30 per month on the basis of his title. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the disputed house was jointly owned by him and his brothers Shamshul Islam and Kutubul Islam and they had jointly executed a sale deed dated 31.1.1961 for a consideration of Rs. 600 in favour of Prem Praka...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sultan and Sons Rice Mill
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)444; [2005]272ITR181(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The judgment of the court was delivered by Prakash Krishna J.-At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under Sections 80J and 80HH for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm manufacturing rice and dealing in food grains. Its claim for relief under Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of its rice manufacturing business was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee did not employ ten or more workers in the manufacturing process and, therefore, it did not satisfy the conditions of Section 80J(4)(iv) and Section 80HH(2)(iv) of the Act. But the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the as...
Atul Kumar Vs. U.P. Export Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC276
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Ritu Raj Awasthi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Upadhyaya learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.2. The petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on 12.12.1989 by the Administrative Officer of U.P. Export Corporation Limited, Lucknow.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Centre Incharge; Carpet Weaving Training Scheme under the Regional Officer of U.P. Export Corporation at Agra. The petitioner was assigned to impart training to the trainees in carpet weaving on 2.5.1988. He was attached to the Regional Office of the above said Corporation at Agra. The petitioner was relieved on 24.11.1988 from the Regional Office and was directed to go to his new place of posting. According to the petitioner, he was not informed about the place of posting where he was required to join. However, the petitioner was later on provided a copy of hi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mil India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(98)ECC709; 2008(222)ELT497(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In the present appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise, Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, has raised the following four substantial questions of law which are said to arise out of the order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 3.10.2003:'1. Whether the CESTAT has committed a manifest error of law to hold the bought out items to be not dutiable whereas the order dated 22.3.2000 (Annexure No. 3) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) has become final and it was merely consequential order on quantum dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure No. 4) passed by Deputy Commissioner and upheld in appeal vide order dated 9.4.2003 (Annexure No. 5) from which the appeal arose before the CESTAT and thus it was not open for the respondent to question the dutiability of bought out items in the appeal arising out of execution order? 2. Whether the dutiability of bought out items in the manufacture of plant and e...
Suraj Prasad Tewari Vs. Zila Commandant, Home Guards and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC404
Shishir Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2004, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which his assignment as a Company Commander has been cancelled by the Divisional Commandant, Home Guards, Jhansi. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid order is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and before passing the aforesaid order no opportunity of hearing or show cause has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Tiwari v. Zila Commissioner, Home Guards, Hamirpur and Ors., reported in 1998 (3) AWC 1623. It has been stated that while deciding the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Single Judge has adopted the reasoning of the earlier judgment delivered in the case of Vibhuti Narain Singh v. State and Ors., reported in 1986 UPLBEC 1130. Various other grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner was being paid honorariu...
Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR587]; (2005)1UPLBEC407
Vineet Saran, J. 1. The father of the petitioner was Senior Clerk (a Class III post) in Nagar Panchayat, Phoolpur, Azamgarh. He died-in-haraess on 20.7.1998. The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. By an order dated 13.12.1999 the petitioner was given appointment on a Class IV post as Peon in Nagar Panchayat Phoolpur, Azamgarh. The petitioner now claims that since he is qualified for being appointed on a Class III post, which was not vacant at the time when he was given appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1999 and has now fallen vacant on 10.12.2003, he should be adjusted on such Class III post. In support of his contention he relies on a Government Order dated 28.5.2004 wherein in Paragraph 3 it has been stated that the dependents of the employee who die-in-harness should not be appointed on a higher post than that on which the deceased employee was working. According to the petitioner the dependent ...
Committee of Management Subhash Memorial Junior High School Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC57; 2005(1)ESC146
Vineet Saran, J.1. Respondent No. 3 Kamal Singh was appointed as assistant teacher in Subhash Memorial Junior High School, Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr on 5.7.1990 after approval had been accorded on 22.5.1990 for such appointment by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2. Subsequently on a complaint having been made before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that Kamal Singh, respondent No. 3, did not possess the requisite qualification as the Shiksha Shastri degree obtained from Varanasi Sanskrit University was not duly recognised, the matter of grant of approval was re-considered by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and by its order dated 25/30.5.1994, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari cancelled his earlier approval accorded in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 thereafter challenged the said order by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Special Appeal No. 864 of 1995 filed against the judgment passed in the writ petition wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »