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.
Subodh Agarwal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1396
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners, six in number, have preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the F.I.R. dated 24th Nov. 2004 lodged against them as case crime No. 352 of 2004, under Sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot. An application has also been put in to stay their arrest in pursuance of the said F.I.R. during the pendency of the writ petition.2. The F.I.R. is Annexure 1 to the writ petition lodged by respondent No. 4, Rajnish Kumar Agarwal brother of the deceased lady Jyoti alias Shalu who was married with petitioner No. 1 Subodh Agarwal on 14th Dec. 1998. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that a decent marriage had been performed. Cash and dowry had been given as per the capacity of the father of the deceased. When 15 days after the marriage, the deceased's father and brother (informant) went to meet her in her Sasural, she told them that her in-laws were asking her...
Tarkeshwar Nath Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC671; (2005)2UPLBEC1301
Vineet Saran, J.1. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.6.1988 issued by Chandauli Polytechnic, Varanasi inviting applications for appointment of two Assistant Lecturers (Civil) and one Assistant Lecturer (Vidyut), besides there other posts, the petitioner had applied for appointment as Assistant Lecturer (Vidyut). After undergoing the process of selection, the petitioner was declared selected by the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Vidyut). Thereafter vide order dated 1.12.1988, the petitioner was appointed on such post but with a condition in the appointment letter that the same shall be only till May, 1989. After May, 1989, when work was not taken from the petitioner, he filed representations before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, (who was Chairman of Chandauli Polytechnic), who had called for the comments from the officials. However, since no orders were passed, the petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer that his repr...
Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)416; [2006]280ITR396(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, at the instance of the assessee has referred the following three questions of law for opinion to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the (case), the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 addressed as M/s Shri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh, Karta Shri Nath, were valid notices to assess the income of the HUF of M/s Munnalal Motilal or Motilal Shri Nath or its successors ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the returns filed by Suresh Chand without filling in the column relating to status were valid returns ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the infirmity in the notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was cured under Section 292B of the above Act ?'2. The facts...
Cevera Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2366
Janardan Sahai, J.1. A suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of land measuring 6 bighas 5 bisiuas 10 bisioansis dated 2.11.1985 and alternatively for refund of money was filed by M/s. Cevera Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Agra (hereinafter called the 'Society') against Charan Singh, Mohan Singh and Bhagwati. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal against the decree filed by the Society has been allowed for the relief of refund of money with interest at 9% per annum but has been dismissed in respect of the relief for specific performance.2. Second Appeal No. 957 of 2001 has been filed by the society while Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2002 has been filed by the defendants Charan Singh and others.3. The settled consideration under the contract of sale dated 2.11.1985 was Rs. 3,26,000 out of which an advance of Rs. 59,000 was paid at that time and it was agreed that the defendants would obtain permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter cal...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ164CAT
1. By this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant was prayed for quashing the order dated 11.9.2000 by which the penalty of a cut of 50% on the pension on a permanent basis otherwise admissible has been imposed. He has further prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay gratuity and leave encashment for 20 days coupled with the relief of quashing the order dated 11.5.2001 by which the suspension period has not been counted as on duty. (Annexure -6 and Annexure-6A of the affidavit).2. Briefly stated, the applicant, at the relevant time was working as Sub-Post Master (SPM), Daranagar, Allahabad who retired on 31.12.1997.Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 whereby chargsheet dated 4.7.1994 (Annexure-1) for his misconduct of fraudulent withdrawal of sum of Rs. 13,500/- from various Saving Bank Accounts. Before finalisation of the proceedings as stated above, the official retired on...
Shivnath Vs. A.D.J. (Court No. 4) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC808
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these writ petitions involve similar questions and challenges identical orders of the same date passed by Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge. It is sufficient to note the facts of Writ Petition No. 51866 of 2004. Shiv Nath v. Additional District Judge, Mirzapur and others, for disposing all the writ petitions.2. Heard Shri R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing orders dated 29.9.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Forest Settlement Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner and the orders dated 7.10.2003 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 4), Mirzapur dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudicating the controversy raised in the writ petition are ; notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued on 26.8.1967 notifying various plots including the plots in question proposed as ...
Rohit Rastogi (Shri) (Since Deceased) and anr. Vs. Vth Additional Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC240; 2005(2)AWC1917
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-tenants against the order passed by revisional Court dated 15th October, 1998 whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the landlord and decreed the suit filed by the landlord after setting the order passed by the trial Court.,2. The facts in brief are that respondent-landlord served a notice on the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners are in arrears of rent for one month and that they have not paid the amount of water tax amounting to Rs. 326/- for the month of September 1985 and that the notices are also in arrears of house and water tax amount to Rs. 320.60 which they have not paid. The notice goes to say that the petitioner-tenants have materially altered the shop in question without permission in writing of the landlord by removing its wooden door and fixing an iron shutter which is contrary to sanctioned map of the local authority and thus ...
Ganga Ram Singh Vs. Suresh Chand Mishra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC411
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the appellate Court under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ( in short the Act) whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord against the order passed by the prescribed authority.2. The brief facts are that the respondent-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the accommodation is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. Before the prescribed authority the petitioner-tenant challenged the assertions made by the landlord to the fact that the building is not in dilapidated condition and therefore, cannot be released in favour of respondent-landlords. The prescribed authority, after exchange of pleadings, allowed the parties to file the report of expert regarding condition of building in order to arrive at a concl...
Madan Lal Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC228; 2005(2)AWC1219
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order passed by the prescribed authority and released the disputed shop in favour of the respondent-landlord.2. The petitioner is the tenant of the disputed shop and contesting respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act for release of the disputed shop on the ground that the applicant is carrying on business of cloth merchant in the partnership of his father and now he wants to set up his business independently, therefore, he needs the disputed shop for the purpose and further that the tenant is having three shops in the same market and the disputed shop is in fact vacant and no business is being carried out from the d...
M.K. Electronics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Additional Prescribed Authority and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC271
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-tenants, challenges the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24th May 2003 whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and reversed the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 17th August 1998.2. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that the landlord requires the shop in question bona fide for his own personal need and the need to settle down his son and widowed daughter. He is at present residing at Sambalpur and wants to shift to Kanpur where the shop in question is situate because of personal and security reasons. It is also stated that the petitioner-tenants, in fact, do not carry on any business in the shop in question and they just keep the shop closed. The prescribed authority after exchange of pleadings of the parties has found that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »