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.
Farrukhabad GramIn Bank Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(All)67; [2005]273ITR113(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The judgment of the court was delivered by Prakash Krishna J.-Challenging the validity of three notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 the present writ petition has been filed.2. The petitioner is a regional rural bank and is an incorporated body established on March 29, 1976, under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The shareholding in the petitioner is as follows :(1) Government of India 50%(2) Bank of India 35%(3) Government of Uttar Pradesh 15%3. It was established mainly with a view to provide basic banking facility in the remote rural areas and to mobilise savings from the rural masses. In the course of banking business the petitioner made investment with the nationalised bank and financial institutions, etc., to earn income. The petitioner for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98 filed its income-tax returns. The assessments were completed and ...
Awadh Nath Tripathi Vs. Chief Development Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC502; [2005(104)FLR653]; (2005)1UPLBEC493
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava and Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla on behalf of the petitioner and Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. Awadh Nath Tripathi, the petitioner, who was a Gram Panchyat Adhikari, retired from Government service on 31.1.1999. The petitioner applied for payment of pension is accordance with the Rules applicable. The respondents, however, passed an order dated 17.2.2000 whereby it was directed that the petitioner was wrongly granted promotional scale with effect from 1.7.1991 and, therefore, the fixation of salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 under order dated 23.3.1993 was being cancelled and re-fixation of salary of the petitioner was being directed. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17.2.2000 the respondents issued an order for recover}' of a sum of Rs. 71,312.00 from the petitioner and withheld the payment of pension to the petitioner. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order...
Ase Mohd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC376; 2005(1)ESC145; (2005)1UPLBEC616
ORDERSushil Harkauli and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. It appears from the stated facts that there was a contract between the petitioner and the respondents in which there was an arbitration clause.3. There arose some dispute regarding the payment for the work done by the petitioner under the contract.4. The petitioner has made a representation to the Executive Engineer, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to this writ petition. The representation relates to the same dispute which is covered by the arbitration clause.5. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the Executive Engineer to decide the representation by a reasoned order.6. In substance, the said prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition amounts to asking this Court to issue a direction substituting the arbitrator contemplated by the arbitration clause with the Executive Engineer ; and also requiring the engineer to virtually adjudi...
Suresh Chand Soni Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC198; 2005(1)AWC443
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 11.1.2001, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and 4.9.2002, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner- tenant No. 12-Ga wherein it is prayed that some restriction may be put on the plaintiff in withdrawing the amount deposited by petitioner in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This application has been rejected by the order dated 11.1.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 11.1.2001, which was dismissed by the revisional court affirming the order of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has doubt without disputing as to whether the plaintiff is landlord of the accommodation in dispute the amount deposited by the petitioner in order to claim the ben...
Chhotey Lal and anr. Vs. Up-zila Adhikari/Sub-divisional Magistrate an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1339
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri B.N. Pathak along with Sri B.N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 are present.2. Learned counsel for the respondents opened up his argument, raising a preliminary issue that the writ petition was not maintainable, because the petitioners had no locus-standi, the writ petition should not be entertained on this count. Since this preliminary objection had not been raised at the time of admission and the writ petition has been formally admitted on 5.11.2003, this preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected.3. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 161, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) regarding plot No. 13 of Gaon Sabha admeasuring .069 acre, situated in village Chahainya, challenging the impugned orders dated 20.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) 13.1.1999 passed by respondent N...
Yaseen Alias Dhondhey (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Mohd. Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1633
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and ' decree dated 30.10.1981 passed by Civil Judge, Baharaich in Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1980 arising out of Regular Suit No. 415 of 1998 decided by 1st Additional Munsif, Baharaich vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1980. Since the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed, the plaintiff has also filed cross objections against the judgment of the first appellate court.2. I have heard Shri u. S. Sahai learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.3. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making any interference in the plaintiff's possession over the land shown by letters ABCD in the map Paper No. 24C prepared by Commissioner and also from maintaining any window, ventilator, door and drain in the south of the land shown by letter...
Sohan Lal (Sri) Vs. Xith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC233
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 12.9.1983, passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 418 of 1981, whereby the appeal of the landlord was allowed and after setting aside the judgment of the prescribed authority dated 6.11.1981, the release application of the landlord for eviction of the petitioner was allowed.2. Respondent No. 3 is the landlady of house No. E-46, Khapra Mohal, Kanpur. It was in the tenancy of the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had died and their heirs have been brought on record. The respondent No. 3 filed an application in 1981 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that there were total 23 members in her family, who were residing in a house at 75/204A Ranjit Purwa Dhankutti, Kanpur. It was further alleged that she has 5 married sons and grown up children, are living in the Ranjit Purwa house...
Nanhey Vs. Harish Chandra Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC105
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K.M. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2004, passed by the revisional Court, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition, whereby the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed by the landlord-respondent was allowed by the revisional Court and set aside the judgment and order of the lower Court.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that the view taken by the revisional Court that the service of notice upon one of the joint tenant cannot be held to be sufficient for all the joint tenants. Admittedly, the notice has not been served on all the joint tenants. The revisional Court while allowing the revision has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court repo...
Liyakat and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1994
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3-9-1979 passed by Sri R. K. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in S. T. No. 282 of 1978 whereby the appellants are convicted under Sections 302/149 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and two years respectively. Their sentences were made concurrent by the trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by the informant Mirajuddin (P.W. 1) are that the father of the informant had enmity with Liyakat in connection with a piece of land. On 3-12-1977 his father had gone to Muzaffar Nagar on a Motor Cycle for collecting the payment of 'Gur' and thereafter he was returning along with his father at about 5.00 p.m. When they reached near the turning of Bewara ahead of Kakrauli near a mango grove Liyakat, Hashim, Shaukat, Mushtaq and Annu came out of the sugar cane field of Indra Sen and Liyaqat loaded his D.B.B.L. gun, Mushtaq Shaukat...
Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. Civil Judge [Sr. Div.] and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC554
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed with the principal prayer that a civil suit of 1999 should be directed to be disposed of within three months by the trial Court.3. It appears from a large number of writ petitions coming up before us with similar prayers, that litigants have somehow got the impression that such orders can be obtained from the High Court for the asking by merely filing a writ petition.4. There is a shortage of judicial officers at every level. Almost all judicial officers are overburdened with cases. It is practically impossible for any Civil Judge to decide any civil suit within three months. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this kind of a prayer.5. We would also take this opportunity to point out that the litigants, filing such petitions, do not even care to find out and mention how many other cases are pending in the particular Court, what are there comparative ages and urgency. In fact in most of the writ pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »