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 Sewak Shukla Vs. Xvith Additional District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC237
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing of the judgment dated 10.9.2002 passed by XVIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 68 of 1999 filed by the landlord whereby the appeal was allowed and the release application of the landlord appellant Under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed.2. Dispute relates to a shop in the premises No. 49/160 Nayaganj, Kanpur Nagar let out of a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- per month to the petitioner. Duly Chand Kanodia was the owner-landlord of the premises in suit. He has four sons, namely, Girish Chandra Kanodia, Anil Kumar Kanodia, Sunil Kumar Kanodia and Krishna Kumar Kanodia. All the four sons it was alleged were unemployed. Setting up a need for establishing business for his sons. Duly Chand Kanodia filed an application Under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the premises in dispute against the petitioner. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 5 of 1996. During pendency of ...
Chief Treasury Officer Vs. Pradeep Pharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1616
Khem Karan, J.1. In both the abovementioned civil revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), a common question is involved and the question is as to whether a Chief Treasury Officer is a garnishee, (as referred to in Rules 46A to 46G of Order XXI of the Code), qua the sums allocated to an Administrative department of the Secretariat or to the Heads of departments or to Head of the offices etc., in a relevant Head or Sub-Head of the Account. Therefore, these revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The relevant facts giving rise to these revisions are as under :2. The opposite party No. 1, M/s Pradeep Pharma, filed two civil suits No. 87 of 1999 and 88 of 1999, against opposite parties No. 2 to 5 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah and succeeded in obtaining decrees on 26.10.1999, for recovery of money. While the decree passed in Suit No. 87 of 1999 was for recovery of Rs. 14,51,525,...
Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2388
A.N. Varma, J.1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by opposite party No. 1, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the election of the Chairman of Harbhaj Ram Kripa Devi Trust, held in the meeting of the trustees on 14.8.2003, has been set aside and It has been ordered that fresh elections be held. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the order dated 28.8.2004.2. The circumstances in which the dispute in the present petition arises is as follows :-One Harbhaj Ram, father of petitioner No. 2 and grandfather of petitioner No. 1 and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 had seven sons. He died intestate on 28.1.1959, his wife Smt. Kripa Devi having predeceased him. Upon the death of said Harbhaj Ram, his seven sons decided to establish a charitable trust in his memory. Accordingly a trust was created on 1.7.19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shashi Modi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR355(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 to this court :'In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to recall its earlier order on the basis of mistakes pointed out and projected by the Tribunal in its order in the miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77.3. Briefly stated the facts involved in the present case are as under :The previous year ended on March 31, 1976. The respondent got married on November 25, 1975. In her return she had disclosed that she had jewellery worth Rs. 73,887 as on March 31, 1975, and in that respect had filed a confirmation from her father confirming the same, annexed with the list of jewellery at the time of her marriage. In the letter of confirmation it has been stated that she bel...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganeshi Lal and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR111(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sales effected at the assessee's counter in India to foreign tourists against foreign currency should be considered as export sales for the purposes of allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated the facts involved in the present case are as under :3. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The respondent is a firm carrying on the business of embroidery and marble goods and selling precious and semi-precious stones. It had effected sales of various goods to foreign customers at its counter against foreign exchange which the foreign customers had taken them outside India. The respondent claimed special deduction unde...
Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Lak ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2078
Pradeep Kant and M.A. Khan, JJ.1. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited under the court's order. On the request of parties counsel we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the claimants-respondents because of the accidental death of Ram Sharan.3. The fact that Ram Sharan was bona fide ticket holder of the train in question is not disputed. It is also not disputed that he fell from the train while coming back from the toilet and the fact that the claimants-respondents are his heirs, entitled for the compensation is also not being disputed. The only plea, which was urged before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that the deceased was mentally imbalanced and thus in a state of madness he jumped from the running train, which would not fasten any liability on the Railways for payment of compensation.4. The aforesaid plea of mental imbalan...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: [2006]282ITR271(All)
1. The Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for opinion to this court :1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of his share in the value of immovable property which belonged to the firm of which the asses-see is a partner 2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The respondent is a partner in a partnership firm which owns an immovable property named Sree Talkies, Agra. He claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the said building. The exemption was denied by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, it was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which order has been upheld by the Tribunal.3. We have heard Shri A. N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue.4. The ...
Mathura Tiwari Son of Ram Charitar Tiwari Vs. the District Judge,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: II(2007)BC566
V.C. Misra, J.Sri K.N. Rai, learned Counsel represents the petitioner and Sri D.S. Tewari and learned Standing Counsel represent the respondents.1. The facts of the case in brief are that a money suit was filed in the Court below by the plaintiff-appellant (respondent No. 2 in this writ petition) against the defendant (petitioner in this writ petition) for an amount of Rs. 1500/- with interest thereupon on the basis of a pronote executed by one Sri Munni Tewari. After a period of two years from the death of said Muni Tewari the petitioner defendant inherited the property, assets and the libality of Munni Tewari. The said pronote was made the basis of the suit. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 22.9.1984 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) dismissed the suit since the pronote could not be proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff being aggrieved filed first appeal before the District Judge. Ballia- respondent No. 1, who vide its impugned order dated 11.8.1989 (Annex...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Lakhimunni and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: I(2007)ACC893
Pradeep Kant, J.1. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited under the Court's order. On the request of parties' Counsel we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the claimant-respondents because of the accidental death of Ram Sharan.3. The fact that Ram Sharan was bona fide ticket holder of the train in question is not disputed. It is also not disputed that he fell from the train while coming back from the toilet and the fact that the claimant-respondents are his heirs, entitled for the compensation is also not being disputed. The only plea, which was urged before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that the deceased was mentally imbalanced and thus in a state of madness he jumped from the running train, which would not fasten any liability on the Railways for payment of compensation.4. The aforesaid plea of mental imbalance is based upon...
Shri Arya Mahila Hitkarini Maha Parishad and anr. Vs. Asstt. Registrar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC11; 2005(1)ESC15
Arun Tandan, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri S.C. Shukla advocate, on behalf of petitioners, standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Gajendra Pratap advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. Shri Arya Mahila Hitkarini Maha Parishad, Lahurabir, Varanasi, is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said society is run and managed in accordance with the registered byelaws of the society which also lay down the procedure for election of its office bearers. On the basis of rival elections held in the year 1992 two lists of office bearers were submitted before the Assistant Registrar for being registered under Section 4 of the Act ; one headed by Smt. Aarti Mukherjee as General Secretary and the other headed by Sri Shri Krishna Tiwari. The Assistant Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 25 (1) of the Act referred the said dispute of rival elections for adjudicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »