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.
Asharfi Lal and ors. Vs. Vth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC231; 2005(2)AWC1212
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord challenges the order passed by the revisional authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 dated 4th November, 1985, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-V to the writ petition, whereby the revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by respondents 2 and 3 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 28th July, 1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'III' to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the shop in question. The aforesaid shop was originally let out to the Thok Evam Futkar Krya Evam Vikray Sahkari Samiti. The said Sahkari Samiti vacated the said shop and the liquidator of the society has handed over the possession of the shop in question to the landlord. The respondents 2 and 3 filed an application that the aforesaid shop is vacant and that the same may be ...
Rana Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC758
Shishir Kumar, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions involving same question and based on same facts, therefore, they are being taken together and the being decided by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49064 of 2004 is being treated as leading case.2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.11.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Traffic Police, Ghaziabad to Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), Headquarters Lucknow.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working in the Traffic Police posted at Ghaziabad as such the Inspector General of Police/Director, Traffic, Uttar Pradesh is not the competent authority to transfer the petitioner out of his parent cadre. It has also been submitted that the impugned order of transfer is without jurisdiction, as such, the same is void. From the perusal of the o...
Abdul Naim Quraishi Vs. Masi-uddIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC316; 2005(2)AWC1260
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 18th July, 2003, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the order dated 19th February, 2001, passed by the prescribed authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act filed by the respondents-landlord.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlord in order to settle his elder son Samiuddin,...
Committee of Management, S.M. College and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All126; 2005(1)ESC598
ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri P. S. Baghel, Advocate, Sri Ramendra Asthana Advocate, Sri Irshad Ali, Advocate and Sri Dinesh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Agarwal Additional Advocate General on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Govind Saran, Advocate on behalf of M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, in all the aforesaid writ petitions.2. At the very outset this Court records its satisfaction for the valuable assistance rendered in the matter by Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, as Amicus curiae.3. All these writ petitions have been filed by the management/principal of various degree colleges affiliated to M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly for the following reliefs :(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioners to hold the students union election for the academic Sessions 2004-05 and onwards.(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Cla...
Pushpendra Singh (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2022
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant is Pushpendra Singh who has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1981 passed by Sri M. Wahajuddin, the then Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1980. He has been convicted under Sections 302 and 379, I.P.C. with sentence of life imprisonment for the former and two years' rigorous imprisonment for the latter. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The background facts leading to the trial may be set forth insofar as they are necessary for the decision of the appeal. The incident took place on 7-12-1979 at about 12 O' Clock in the noon at A Block Quarter No. 759, Kamla Nagar, P.S. New Agra, District Agra. The F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 1 p.m. by Head Constable Raghunath Singh. The deceased was one Netrapal Singh. He was then posted as S.O. of P.S. Chobia in District Etawah and had come to Agra, staying in the aforesaid quarter which was in occupation of Smt. Krishna Kumari wife of Mahipal S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himalyan Magnesite Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)153; [2005]276ITR56(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. The assessment year 1981-82 is involved. The assessee-respondent is a company and it claimed deduction under Section 80J of the Act which was not allowed by the assessing authority as no production took place during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81. The only trial production took place in this relevant assessment year. The regular production had started only in June, 1981, i.e., during the subsequent assessment year. The claim was also not accept...
Kum. Priti Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC897; (2005)2UPLBEC1194
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The short question to be decided in this case is whether the daughter of second wife, with whom the deceased Government servant had entered into a marriage, while the first wife was alive, is entitled for consideration of the compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules of 1974).3. The admitted facts in this case are that the petitioner's father Late Chet Narain Singh, was serving as permanent Collection Amin, died in harness on 31.12.2001. The petitioner is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased Government servant. The second marriage took place, while the first wife is still alive.4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that a Government servant under the Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 is not entitled to marry while his first wife is alive and that the chil...
Shri S.N. Agrawal, (indl) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)396; [2006]280ITR263(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In the Wealth Tax Reference No. 121 of 1987 which relates to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, the Income 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:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income Tax Payers) Act, 1974 constituted an asset within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Wealth Tax Act and were includible in the net wealth of the assessee for assessment to wealth tax?'2. In the Wealth Tax Reference No. 127 of 1987 which relates to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the Income 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:-'Whether the Tribunal was right ...
Mohan and ors. Vs. Settlement Officer Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2315
S.K. Singh, J.1. Prayer in this petition is to issue writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the appellate authority to entertain and decide the appeal Nos. 384 and 791 (Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition).2. Facts in brief will be useful to be noticed for disposal of this petition. Against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.5.1986 passed in case No. 1135/1136 in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, two appeals referred above came to be filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. One appeal was filed by Ram Karan and others and other appeal by the State. It is in respect to the aforesaid appeals, submission of counsel for the petitioners is that continuance of the appeal is an abuse of process and thus they may be directed not to be proceeded and respondents may be directed to withdraw the appeals.3. Submission is that appeals filed by the respondents were barred by time and there is no prayer for condonation of delay and ...
Ram Briksh Singh and ors. Vs. Amjad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1552
Sanjay Misra, J.1. By means of this instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 4.3.1989 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1988 Arising out of Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1987, Ram Briksh Singh v. Amjad. An interim order dated 2.5.1989 was passed by this Court when this appeal was admitted.2. By the impugned order, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with restoration application has been rejected by the court below. A perusal of the. impugned order indicates that the appeal of the appellant was dismissed for default with costs on 1.7.1988. The application for restoration along with Section 5 application supported with affidavit was made by the appellant on 4.8.1988. Consequently there was delay of four days in making the application. A copy of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act supporting affidavit dated 4.8.1988 has been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 in this appeal along wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »