Allahabad Court February 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.
Satish Chandra JaIn Vs. Itat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN499(All)
Ghanshyam Dass, J.Heard Shri R.R. Agarwal and Shri Awasthi for the revenue. The controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass. Assessment order had been passed under the Income Tax Act and the appeal is pending.2. The appellate authority had granted the interim relief, however it expired by virtue of the statutory provisions after a period of 180 days, required under proviso 2 to section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act.3. The second stay application of the petitioner is pending, neither the stay application is being disposed of nor the appeal is being heard. However, recovery proceedings had been initiated issuing the garnishee order.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition requesting the appellate authority, i.e., respondent No. 1, to consider and dispose of the second application for stay filed by the assessee within a period of 3 weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of the order before him, which the petitioner shall file w...
Vakil Singh Patel Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1298
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.1.2003 by which an entertainment tax has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed for evading the tax.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the District Entertainment Tax Officer had raided the premises of the petitioner on 30.10.2002, along with its team and he found that a video film was being exhibited for public at large after issuing tickets without having any valid licence under the statutory provisions. The tickets issued by the petitioner to the cinema goers had been seized from the said persons by the raiding party and their signatures were also taken. A case was registered against him. He was issued a show cause notice by the registered post on 7.11.2002, to show cause, but he did not submit any reply, nor he appeared before it. Under Section 12 of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979, inquiry was initiated aga...
Uma Shanker Shukla Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1296; (2004)2UPLBEC1454
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as Moharrir, Town Area, Naraini on 28.12.1964. He was confirmed on the post on 10.9.1970. He was suspended on 22.3.1976 and was served with the charge-sheet on the same day for committing certain misconduct of not depositing a sum of Rs. 819.10 for four days in the Treasury. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.3.1976. However, the Town Area Committee vide resolution No. 1.76-77, dated 23.4.1976 decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and the papers were forwarded for approval to prescribed authority under Section 10 (2) of Town Area Act, 1914. The prescribed authority vide order dated 18.6.1976 held that before dismissing the petitioner from service, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. The petitioner was not reinstated on the post nor he was paid any subsistence allowance.3. Aggrieved the petitioner moved a representation to respondent No. 1 for being reinst...
iqbal Ahmad Vs. Smt. Naimul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1974
K.S. Rakhra, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1987 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No. 301 of 1982 by which the decree dated 15.7.1982 of the trial court in Regular Suit No. 256 of 1981, Abdul Wahid and Ors. v. Iqbal Ahmed was reversed.2. The substantial questions of law on which the appeal has been pressed and the learned counsel for the parties have addressed the Court are following :(1) Whether the burden to prove that the sale deed was liable to be cancelled for the ground given in the plaint was on the plaintiff and whether the same was shifted to the defendants in this case.(2) Whether adverse inference could be drawn against the defendant in the present case because he had failed to produce before the Court the original sale deed.3. The suit of the plaintiff was for cancellation of sale - deed dated 25.8.1981, which is said to have been executed by plaintiff No. 1 Abdul Wahid in favour of defenda...
Surya Bhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1979
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the retirement order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 4 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ of mandamus declaring Regulation 47 (1) of the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 as ultra vires.2. Impugned order Annexure-1 is retirement notice by which the petitioner has been asked to retire on superannuation at the age of 58 years with effect from 31.1.2004.3. The petitioner is a seasonal clerk in service of the Cane Union, Mankapur, District Gonda. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 28.3.1970 when there was no service rules or regulations. In the year 1975, U.P. Cane Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') were framed which govern the service conditions of the petitioner. Admittedly, under Regulation 47, the age of superannuation of Class III Employee is 58 years. It is alleged by the petitioner th...
Subedar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1869
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri P.S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner was appointed as Urdu Translator in the year 1996. He was sent on deputation as Junior Engineer to Zila Panchayat, Meerut. Thereafter vide order dated 15.10.2001 he was attached to the office of Zila Panchayat, Baghpat on deputation for a period of two years which expired on 15.10.2003. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since respondent No. 2, Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Baghpat had recommended to the State Government on 4.8.2063 to extend the period of deputation hence he would have entitled to continue to work on the post of Junior Engineer in the office of respondent No. 2 however, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2003 the respondent No. 2 has directed that since the period of deputation of the...
Hari Har Singh S/O Mahipal Singh Vs. V. Niroti Lal Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3568
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for wilfully violating the stay order dated 10-2-1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 (Hari Har Singh v. The Chief Election Officer, U.P. Nirvachan Directorate).2. A perusal of the said order dated 10-2-1993 passed in the aforesaid writ petition shows that by the said order, it was, inter-alia, directed that the representation of the petitioner be decided by Zila Adhikari/ Zila Niravachan Adhikari, Etawah, within the period mentioned in the said order.3. By the order dated 31-3-1993, this Court directed for issuance of notice on the contempt petition.4. In response to the notice, a counter affidavit sworn on 13th July, 1993 was filed by Brijendra Pal (opposite party No. 2). A supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 1-2-1994 was also filed by the said Brijendra Pal (Opp. party...
Cit Vs. Smt. Sukhrani Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN354(All)
ORDERAffidavit of service has been filed today. It appears that the assessee has been served but none appeared on behalf of the assessee.2. In this reference, following question has been referred to under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order cancelling the assessment orders framed by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment years in question'. 3. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and the question referred for our opinion, has already been answered by the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]243ITR808(SC) and CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 502, wherein the Apex Court considered the scope and effect of the amendment of section 263(1) by Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect and held that the powers of Commissioner of Income Tax s...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Special Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All213; 2004(2)AWC1271
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, on behalf of the petitioner-Union of India and Sri A. K. Shukla, holding brief of Sri V. B. Khare, on behalf of the respondents.2. The present petition has been filed by Union of India through Divisional Engineer, Telecommunications, U. P., Kanpur against the order of the District Judge passed in Misc. Case No. 7/70 of 1972, Brij Bhan Chandra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. By means of the said order, the District Judge has determined a sum of Rs. 2,500 as compensation to be paid to the plaintiffs for loss of wood and loss of prospective yield of mango trees.3. It is stated that the proceedings were not legally maintainable inasmuch as the claimants should have first approached the authority concerned under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act before filing a petition under Section 16 of the Act. Further, the petition as filed by the plaintiff suffered from the defect of non-impleadment ...
Buddhiman Chauhan Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2150
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri I. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties the present 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 quashing the order dated 6.12.1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad (hereinafter in short called as the 'Board'), and further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 i.e., Secretary of the Board to issue mark-sheet and certificate of the petitioner of Intermediate Examination 1983 bearing roll No. 262302 to the petitioner expeditiously.4. It app...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »