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.
Ram Babu Gupta Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR411]; (2005)1UPLBEC750
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri S.N. Dube, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and finally disposed off, at this stage.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 11.9.2000 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad- respondent No. 1 against the petitioner holding that the petitioner had not been retrenched and was not entitled to any relief.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as an Apprentice in Mechanic Maintenance Chemical Plant Trade under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 for two years with the respondent No. 2- Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., Phoolpur, District Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the IFFCO) on a stipend ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wajid Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)602; [2005]278ITR392(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The income fax Appellate tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions 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 Tribunal has been correct in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order directing accepting of the assessee's request made Under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 that it was an industrial undertaking and the mistake of its being treated as non-industrial one was apparent on the face of the record in respect of assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-3. The reference relates to the assessment years 1972-73 76. The respondent is a private limited company. The original assessments were completed and revised in respect of all the four assessment years whereunder the rate of tax of 65% plus surcharge was applied. ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Shekh Mohd. Arif, Prop. o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)499; [2005]278ITR461(All)
P. Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax appellate Tribunal, Allahabad at the instance of commissioner of Income tax referred the following 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 the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that no enquiries need be made by the I.T.O. relating to the issue of transfer of property in favour of wife in lieu of Mahar and investment in property, once it had given finding that the C.I.T. was correct in fact and in law in setting aside the order of the I.T.O as the I.T.O. had framed the assessment without making proper enquiries ?2. Whether in law and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no need to make any further enquiry about the loan from Shri D.K. Gupta ?3. Whether in law and on the facts of the case the Tribunal is justified in excluding the income of property at Nawal Kishore Road, Lucknow from the assessment of th...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Alok Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)192
1. These two references have been made at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the only one question of law under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in WT Ref. No. 45 of 1986 for opinion to this Court which is as follows :Whether, in a case of mere purchase and sale of ornaments without having any machinery or any labour employed, benefit under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the WT Act can be allowed to an assessee ?Whereas two questions have been referred in WT Ref. No. 100 of 1986 which are as follows :1. Whether an assessee like the one before the Hon'ble Tribunal could claim the benefit of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the WT Act, 1957, merely on the basis of purchase and sale of ornaments and by employing self-employed persons as labour on piece to piece work basis.2. Whether the assessee could be considered as an industrial undertaking on the facts of this case and legally entitled to exemption conferred by Section 5(...
Cit Vs. Wajid Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN848(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions 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 Tribunal has been correct in law in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing accepting of the assessee's request made under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that it was an industrial undertaking and the mistake of its being treated as non-industrial one, was apparent on the face of the record in respect of assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The reference relates to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The respondent is a private limited company. The original assessments were completed and revised in respect of all the, four assessment years, whereunder the rate of tax of 65% plus surcharge was appli...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR990]; (2005)1UPLBEC528
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Sheshadhari Trivedi, Advocate holding brief for Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award-dated 9th March, 1989 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) given by the Labour Court- respondent No. 2 entitling respondent No. 3-workman to be reinstated with continuity of service along with back wages and the order dated 23.7.1988 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). The Labour Court for deciding the case framed two issues, as under:-(i) Whether both the domestic inquires initiated against the workman were just and proper in accordance with the principles of natural justice?(ii) Whether the reference was bad in law as mentioned in paras 1, 2, and 4 of the written statement of the employer?The Labour Court decided the said issues in favour of the respondent No. 3-workman.3. The fa...
U.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. Ram Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC393; 2005(1)ESC295; [2005(104)FLR312]; (2005)ILLJ1072All
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. These two writ petitions raise similar questions and are being decided by this common order. It is sufficient to note facts of Writ Petition No. 48967 of 2004 for disposal of both the writ petitions.3. By the writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 18th October, 2001 passed by Controlling Authority.4. On an application filed by the respondents under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), an order was passed by the Controlling Authority on 18th October. 2001. Against the said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner on 17th December, 2003, i.e., after two years and one month. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that according to Section 7(7) of the Act, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than 120 days.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable and...
Deepak Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC893
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Deepak Gupta, seeks the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to recall for the record and quash the impugned orders dated 18.8.2004, 18.9.2004, passed by the respondent No. 4 and 19.10.2004 & 3.11.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 (contained in Annexures-7, 11, 19 and 21 respectively to the writ petition).(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the business of country-made liquor carried on by the petitioner in his sub-shop 66 C, Jora, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar in any manner whatsoever till the date of expiry of the licence on 31.3.2005 and/or if renewed subsequent thereto.(c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.(d) award costs to the petitioner.'2. Vide order dated 18th August, 2004, the...
Vijendra Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC975
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.9.2004 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.9.2003 has been confirmed by which Consolidation Officer had granted stay to opposite party to the order of the Consolidator.3. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner the following facts emerge. Admittedly the property belongs to one Kasturi Devi. It is said that on her death, by the order of the Consolidator who is empowered vide Section 6A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as introduced by U. P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 2002, U. P. Act No. 3 of 2002, the name of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was directed to be mutated/recorded. On filing the application by the respondent No. 3, the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 2.9.2003 stayed the effe...
Shankar Lal (Sri) Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC579
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment dated 11.11.1983, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Aligarh, in UPUB Revision No. 87 of 1983, whereby the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer declaring vacancy and also releasing the premises in favour of the landlord has been set aside.2. Dispute relates to shop described as No. 7/25, Subhash Road, Aligarh. The original owner and landlord was Vichitra Behari. The premises was in tenancy of Sri Jugal Kishore, who died sometime in August 1998. On the death of Sri Jugal Kishore, the landlord Vichitra Bihari filed an application for declaration of vacancy and release under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') on the ground that there were no heirs of Sri Jugal Kishore, as mentioned in Paragraph 4 of the application dated 4.9.1978. It was further stated in Paragraphs 5 of the application that after death of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »