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.
State of U.P. Vs. Triloki Nath Pandey (H.C.C.P. 232) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC400
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th March, 2000, by which the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed quashing the result of the Infantry Training/Physical Training test (hereinafter called the 'IT/PT test'), held for the purpose of departmental promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) from the post of Head Constable and directing the respondents to hold the selection in the light of the observations made therein.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that for the purpose of departmental promotion on the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police from the eligible Head Constables, having three years experience and below the age of 40 years, as on 1.1.1999, applications were invited and preliminary written examination was held on 5.9.1999. All the said respondents passed the said examination and they were asked to appear in the IT/PT test held from 16.11....
Chandresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1565
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This is first appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Old Act) by the owner of truck No. UPQ-1679 against the judgment and award dated 30.9.1988 passed by Sri S.K. Saxena the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur whereby he allowed the claim petition for recovery of Rs. 23,200 only along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the owner of the offending vehicle.2. In brief, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under :3. A claim petition by Yogendra Kumar Srivastava an advocate of Gorakhpur was sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur by registered post. It was alleged by the claimant that on 9.11.1985 at about 12.00 noon, he was going home on his Rajdoot Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CPJ-8798. He was himself driving the Motorcycle. A truck bearing Registration No. UPQ-1679 owned by opposite party No. 1 (C.K. Agarwal) was coming from the opposite direction and had a collision with the Motor...
Virendra Nath Ojha Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC674
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was duly selected as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (in short 'P.A.C.') along with 179 other candidates. After appointment, he joined duty as a Constable in August, 1994. On receiving information of his wife's illness, he left for his home on 30th December, 1998 after applying for leave, but without waiting for the same to be sanctioned. Thereafter when he returned back after 11 days i.e. on 10.1.1999, he was informed that by an order dated 8.1.1999 passed by Commandant, 36 Vahini, P.A.C. Ram Nagar, Varanasi, Respondent No. 3 he had been dismissed form service. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C., Varanasi Region, Varanasi. Without entering into the merits of the case, the appeal was dismissed on 30.3.1999 on the ground of maintainability, holding that the appeal would not lie under Rule 20 (1) (a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. London Machinery Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2006]280ITR271(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to a the Act) for opinion of this Court, relevant to the assessment year 1976- 77:'1- Whether in law and on the facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the remaining amount of refund of excise duty of Rs. 30,851/ which was distributed amongst the partners of the firm was not the income of the assessee firm.2- Whether in law and on the facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 30,851/- was not assessable under Section 41(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in the year under consideration,'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The assessment for the assessment year 1976- 77 was initially completed by the assessing authority but was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide his order-dated 14-11-1979. The revised retu...
Cit Vs. London Machinery Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN320(All); [2005]146TAXMAN326(All)
Prakash Krishna, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has refer-red the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the Act) for opinion of this court, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77:'1. Whether in law and on the facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the remaining amount of refund of excise duty of Rs. 30,851 which was distributed amongst the partners of the firm was not the income of the assessee firm.2. Whether in law and on the facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of. Rs. 30,851 was not assessable under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year under consideration.'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 was initially completed by the assessing authority but was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax. (Appeals) vide his order dated 14-11-1979. The revised return on 13...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Dixit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(All)375; [2005]273ITR126(All)
P. Krishna, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, at the instance of the Income-tax Department 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 the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in fully concurring with the reasonings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granting exemption to the payments received in lieu of leave encashment to the assessee while in service ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was justified in law in not giving effect in the cases under considering to the amendment to section 10(10AA) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Part I) which has been amended retrospectively with effect from the assessment year 1978-79 ?'2. The assessment year 1983-84 is involved in the present reference. The brief facts of the case are as foll...
Manju Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC224; [2005(104)FLR773]; (2005)1UPLBEC435
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 23.10.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further with the enquiry in pursuance of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 23.10.2004.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was given an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, claiming that she is the daughter of one Rajendra Singha Verma, R/o 50/70-1, Shiv Dishani Nagar, Shahganj, District Agra. The father of the petitioner was a police personnel, therefore, she is entitled for an appointment and after consideration appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to continue. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice (Annexure 1) to the writ petition by which the petitioner ...
Lakhan Lal Uttam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC247; (2005)1UPLBEC445
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents and have perused the record.2. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as a driver on contract basis in the year 1997 and he has continuously been working as such and hence by means of this writ petition he has prayed that instead of payment being made under the terms of the contract, he should be paid the minimum pay scale as admissible to the post of driver and also be regularized in service on the vacant post of driver.3. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the petitioner has earlier, through the same Counsel and on similar facts, filed a writ petition praying for extension of the age limit and permission to apply for the post of driver in response to an advertisement issued by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 28.10.2004. It has thus been contended that the second writ petiti...
Smt. Kishan Pyare Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Authority-cum-prescrib ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC260; 2005(2)AWC1217
Vikram Nath, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment dated 2.9.1987, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr, in Case No. 35 of 1985, Babu Ram v. Nand Kishore and Ors., whereby he has declared vacancy in the premises in dispute.2. The dispute relates to shop No. 316, situate in Mohalla Intarorhi. Bulandshahr of which Babu Ram, respondent No. 2, was the owner and landlord and Shravan Kumar son of the petitioner was a tenant. During the pendency of the writ petition, the landlord Babu Ram transferred the premises in dispute in favour of Sunil Kumar son of Ram Bharosey Lal and he has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. The tenant Shravan Kumar had died on 24.2.1985. The landlord Babu Ram filed an application under Section 12 (1) (b) read with Section 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for declaring vacancy and releasing the shop in dispute in his favour on the ground that the tenant Shravan Kumar ha...
Lala Yadav Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR73]; (2005)1UPLBEC781
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The controversy involved in this writ petition is as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner.3. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in all the documents and certificates issued by the educational and other authorities.4. According to the petitioner, 1.1.1959, an incorrect date of birth, has been recorded in all the documents including his Service Book and certificates issued by the educational authorities. He claims that his correct date of birth is 5.7.1963.5. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accountant in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The date of birth recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner is 1.1.1959 on the basis of his High School certificate, The petitioner moved an application to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad for correc...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »