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.
Jogendra Singh Bajaj (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC394
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition on behalf of three tenants was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.4.2004 as no one appeared for the petitioners. Restoration application was filed on 18.8.2004. Cause shown in the restoration application is sufficient. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 23.4.2004 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution is set aside. Learned Counsel for both the parties have been heard on merit of the petition.2. It is undisputed that after dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution on 23.4.2004 landlord took possession of the property in dispute in August, 2004,3. Writ Petition arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent No. 2, Surendra Kumar Garg (S.K. Garg in short) on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 43 of 1991 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Saharanpur. Release application was filed against four...
Standard Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]278ITR77(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this court.'(i) 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that payment made after the last date of payment of third instalment of advance tax but before close of the financial year (relevant to assessment year) is not a proper compliance with Section 209A for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 273(2)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whether or not a revised estimate has been filed ?(ii) Whether the tax paid during the previous financial year (up to March 31) should be treated as advance tax for the purpose of computation of penalty under Section 273(2)(aa) or not ?'2. Briefly stated the facts givin...
Cit Vs. Praveen Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN682(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two 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, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Incon-lctax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest under section 214(1) is payable to the assessee on the excess amount paid during the financial year on the date subsequent to the date fixed under section 211 of the Income Tax Act for payment of such instalment.2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest under section 214(2) is payable to the assessee, from the date of regular assessment to the date of making refund, on the amount refundable as a result of excess amount paid only as a result of proceedings under section 155 of the Income Tax Act, subsequent to the regular assessm...
Smt. Sugra Begum Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC320; 2005(1)AWC27
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri I.H. Khan on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Ghaziabad moved an application dated 27th March, 1980 in the Court of Registrar, Ghaziabad, who is the prescribed authority under the provisions of U. P. Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 (hereinafter U. P. Act No. 22 of 1972) against the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner has encroached upon 10 square yards at 22 kilometers on National Highway and as such is an unauthorised occupant of the same and appropriate order for his eviction may be passed and further a sum of Rs. 400/- was prayed for as damages. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 8112 of 1982.3. After notices having been issued to petitioner and after hearing the parties concerned, the prescribed authority by means of judgment and order dated 14th June, 1983 held that the petitioner was in unauthorised oc...
Kamla Kant Pandey Vs. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All136; 2005(1)AWC877
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is as to whether the State Government was justified in cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner and restraining him from transporting minor minerals from the area known as Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary situate in a tract of Vindhyan plateau. The issue raised is one of the prime importance as it involves the powers of the respondent-State Government in permitting mining operations in areas which have been declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As has been brought on record the Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary preserves within its fold some very rare species of flora and fauna including the prized Black Buck and such other animals. It is also evident from the management plan of the Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary appended as Annexure-8 to the supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit that diversity of habitat Includes tigers, panther, cheetal, sambhar, sloth, bear, hyaena, fox, jackal, w...
S.P. Jauhari and ors. (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC414; (2005)1UPLBEC1018
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioners pursuant to their nominations by the State of Uttar Pradesh vide Notification dated 6.10.2004 on the reserved seats for Provincial Medical Services' Doctors.2. It is submitted by Shri Murli Dhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that 104 seats are reserved for the officers of the Provincial Medical Services in Post Graduation course in the seven Medical Colleges of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Academic session starts in the June-July every year, but the officers of the Medical Services had been selected for the Post Graduation course at a belated stage and the said Notification subsequently had been withdrawn as the Medical Colleges were not prepared to admit the petitioners being recommended at a belated stage. Therefore, the direction should be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioners. More so, in some Medical Colleges, some of t...
Ram Adhar and ors. Vs. Dhilai (D.) Through L.Rs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1569
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Defendants-appellant preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1987 decreeing suit by reversing the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1987 in Original Suit No. 101 of 1985 for cancellation of sale deeds.2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 27th November, 1984 and 14th December, 1984 registered on 28th November, 1984 and 15th December, 1984 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the allegations, inter alia, that plaintiff is bhumidhar of the land in dispute, his main source of earning is agriculture, he is an illiterate, old, infirm, ailing and rustic village person having no knowledge about Court proceedings, he has no son and has only one daughter Jaimurti who is serving him, two sons of his daughter Jaimurti are also residing with him, plaintiff wanted to execute Will in favour of his daughter Jaimurti so that after his death no dispute remains ; due t...
Ram Awadh Ram Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC693; [2005(105)FLR1086]
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri H.R. Misra along with Sri K.M. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties this writ petition is decided finally at this stage in view of the Second Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.3. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22/30.6.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to the petitioner passed by the District Magistrate. Azamgarh transferring the petitioner from Azamgarh to Meh Nagar by a general transfer order. On the oral prayer of learned Counsel for the petitioner the subsequent transfer order dated 9.7.2004 was allowed to be challenged in the present petition.4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially ...
Vijai Prakash Dubey and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC688
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri M.M.L. Srivastava on behalf of the petitioners and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.2. The petitioners who are 4 in number claim to have been appointed as daily wage employees in the office of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board), which is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The appointment of the petitioners was made in order to cope with the increase of work of the Board due to rapid increase in the number of students appearing in the High School and Intermediate Examinations conducted by the said Board for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh as well as due to the increase in number of institutions recognised for the purposes of admitting students to appear in High School and intermediate Examinations conducted by the Board. Prior to the appointment of the petitioners there were other similarly situated daily wage em...
Babulal Jiwan Ram (Huf) Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN275(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following three questions under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court:'(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, pronotes of the value of Rs. 18,000 executed in favour of Km. Vandana Kedia recovered from the room of Smt. Prakashwati Devi Kedia constituted investments made by the assessee HUF.(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, investments of Rs. 20,000 represented by the pronotes executed in favour of Smt. Janki Devi and Rs. 27,500 in the pronotes executed in favour of Sri Satya Narain Agarwal were the investments of the assessee HUF.(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, pronotes recovered from the custody of Smt. Prakashwati Devi Kedia, could be considered for assessment in the case of assessee HUF?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:The present reference ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »