Allahabad Court December 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Shashi Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)305; [2005]276ITR64(All)
R.K. Agrawal J.1. In Wealth-tax Reference No. 237 of 1987 which relates to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73 to 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 the opinion to this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under Section 34A(3A) of the Wealth-tax Act is allowable on refunds paid after March 31, 1975, where the payment made prior to March 31, 1975, under Section 15B of the Wealth-tax Act are adjusted against the wealth-tax demands on the completion of assessments ?'2. Whereas in Wealth-tax Reference No. 124 of 1988 which relates to the assessment years 1971-72, 1975-76 to 1977-78, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(1) of the Act for the opinion to this court :'1. Whether the Tr...
Madanlal Kishorilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)144; [2005]277ITR209(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a 'reasonable opportunity' was provided to the assessee by the authorities below ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the onus to explain in regard to the alleged difference lay on the assessee and not on the Department ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) by which he had cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 37,000 was validly imposed under Secti...
Farhat HussaIn Azad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1221; 2005(1)ESC161; (2005)1UPLBEC474
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This reference has been made to a Larger Bench by the order dated 14.7.2004 of the learned Chief Justice, for resolving the issue as to whether the service rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis can be counted for the purposes of determining the seniority, promotion etc. as two Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 2002 (Arjun Ravi Das v. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Service and Ors., decided on 27.2.2004), [Reported in (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1248 (DB)] and in Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001 (N.K. Tripathi v. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, decided on 13.2.2003) [Reported in (2004) 1UPLBEC 674 (DB)], have taken contrary views. Both the aforesaid cases relate to the same department. As large number of cases have been referred for determining the issue involved, Writ Petition No. 10504 of 2004, Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and Ors., has been taken to be the leading case.2. The Rural Engineering Departme...
Dwarika Prasad Vs. Xith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC409; 2005(1)AWC831
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 3--Munni Lal to oppose the writ petition, though Sri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 1 and dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 2. Though the petitioner has sought for certain other reliefs in the writ petition, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the relief No. 1 and pressed the same only.3. The facts of the case in brief-ar...
Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. Suresh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC574
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The writ petition has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 21.8.2004 rejecting an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. which stands confirmed by an order dated 11.10.2004 passed in Civil Revision No, 212 of 2004 by the District Judge, Aligarh. Plaintiff-respondents filed Original Suit No. 100 of 2003 in the Court of Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawaii, Aligarh for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.11.1990. The facts of the case are that registered sale deed was executed on 17.11.1990 in favour of the defendants by late Smt. Bhauti. Father of the present plaintiffs Sri Zila Singh filed original suit No. 692 of 1993 for cancellation of the sale deed which was dismissed in default on 12.2.1999. No restoration application was filed and subsequently the present suit was instituted. The defendant-petitioners filed an application for rejecting the plaint under Order ...
Radhey Shyam Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC188; (2005)2UPLBEC1181
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 19.8.2002 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra refusing to make reference of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to his termination of service.2. The petitioner was appointed on 11.6.1971 as Draftsman. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Foreman. His services were allegedly terminated without compliance of provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') w.e.f. 4.9.2001. It is also alleged that when he approached the employers for settlement of dispute, he received no response and as such, he moved an application under Section 2-A of the Act before the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra on 20.9.2001.3. The employers-Respondent No. 3-M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. Shikohabad, District Firozabad contested the conciliation proceeding and filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was absent ...
U.P. Forest Corporation and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC462
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These writ petitions raise common question of facts and law and challenge awards given by Labour Court, U.P., Rampur, in different adjudication cases registered before the Labour Court, in pursuance of the reference made by the State Government, under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in all the writ petitions, with consent of the parties the writ petitions are being finally decided by this common judgment.3. Writ Petition No. 46578 of 2003 arises out of Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 with which case several other adjudication cases were consolidated by the order of the Labour Court and Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 was treated to be leading case. Facts and evidence of Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1998 are being noted in detail to appreciate and decide the issues raised in these cases.4. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Smt. Su...
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Ramala, Etc. Vs. Deputy Labour Commis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC474; [2005(104)FLR985]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondents. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is running a sugar mill in the district of Bagpat known as The Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.'. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 27.11.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P. Meerut in Adjudication case No. 10/93. The award was enforced under Section 6C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by publication on the notice board on 14.1.1998.3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on temporary basis in clerical grade HI by order dated 17.2.1980. It was clarified ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC844
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Lalji Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3/1 are present.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 30.8.1988 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) by which the termination of the service of the workman vide Order dated 30.4.1985 had been declared Illegal and set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and full back wages.3. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3 was appointed as a driver in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways on 11.6.1965 and was subsequently confirmed on the post of driver w.e..f. 1.4.1972. The U.P. Road Transport Corporation was constituted w.e.f. 1.6.1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and it acceded in toto to the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. The workman met with an accident...
Balbir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2747
M.C. Jain, J.1. Appellant-Balbir Singh has come up in appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th March, 1981 passed by Sri H. C. Lal, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1980. He has been convicted under Sections 394 and 412, I.P.C. The sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded for the former offence and five year's rigorous imprisonment for the latter. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The incident took place on 24-12-1979 at about 3 a.m. in village Nidhauli Kalan, Police Station Nidhauli Kala, District Etah and the report was lodged on 24-12-1979 at 4.45 a.m. by Dr. Kishan Pal Singh PW-2. Dr. Ratan Lal Jain was the resident of Block No. 1 of town Nidhauli Kalan. He was a medical practitioner. Three or four miscreants entered his house in between the night of 23/24-12-1979 23/24-12-1979 at about 3 a.m. from the southern side and successively opened shots, killing him (Dr. Ratan Lal Jain) and his son Anil Kumar ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »