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.
Modern Metal Industries and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanti Parolia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR561(All); 2004(3)AWC2100; [2004]55SCL318(All)
M. Katju, J.1.This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 22.12.2003 by which the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) has been dismissed.2. Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned senior advocate and Sri Sunil Gupta learned senior advocate for the appellants and Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate and Sri H.N. Singh for the respondents.3. The facts of the case are that a partnership firm M/s. Modern Metal Industries, appellant No. 1, was constituted under the Partnership Act, whose partners included (1) the appellant No. 2, Shri Bhagwan Gupta, (2) Smt. Shanti Parolia, and (3) Smt. Sunil Kumari Parolia. The business of the firm consisted of manufacture and sale of various aluminium and steel products, and the factory is located in the premises at 83/258A, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur. True copy of the partnership deed is at page 46 of the paper book in this case ...
Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC366(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The applicant, a public limited company having its registered office at Sikandrabad, being a new industrial unit was granted eligibility certificate/exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, for the period of 6 years from February 3, 1986 to February 2, 1992. Consequently it became liable for payment of tax for the first time for the month of February, 1992 after February 2, 1992. Monthly returns for the month of February, 1992 were due and could have been filed by March 20, 1992 for U.P. and Central sales were filed on March 24, 1992 along with challans and cheque No. 443926 dated March 21, 1992. Non-filing of the returns for U.P. and Central by March 20, 1992 inspired the department to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. In reply to the show cause notice it was submitted that the applicant's executive who was dealing with the sales tax matter was under bona fide belief that the ret...
Tara Chandra Tewari Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-i and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR79]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perusal the record.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the correctness and validity of the award dated 29.3.2001 in Adjudication Case No. 70 of 1999. By the aforesaid award the Tribunal has decided the reference against the petitioner holding that he had hot completed 240 days of continuous service in the last preceding 12 months, as is not entitled to any relief.2. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager Class-IV employee by the Executive Engineer, Gramin Abhiyantran Sewa Prakhand Vikash Bhawan, Pratapgarh w.e.f. 1.1.1990. It is alleged that he has continuously worked till 2.12.1996 thereafter his services were terminated orally w.e.f. 3.12.1996. It is also alleged that prior termination of service of the petitioner has also claimed regularization and had set the representation to respondent No. 3 in this regard.3. Aggrieved by his termination1 the petitioner filed an application raising an industrial ...
Swarup Packaging and Sanitizers (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas383(All); [2004]53SCL394(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned notice dated 25-11-2003 (Annexure-7 to the petition).3. It is admitted that the petitioner-company took a loan from the respondent Bank, but it did not re-pay the loan amount as Scheduled. Hence the impugned notice dated 25-11-2003 was issued by the Bank to the petitioner calling upon it to pay under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act).4. The validity of the aforesaid Act has already been upheld by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. v. State Bank of India [2003] 2 UPLBEC 1785. We respectfully agree with the view taken therein.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the respondent Bank had filed O.A. No. 84 of 2003 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad for recovery of its dues, a...
Atam Pal Vs. Hardeva and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC1; 2004(3)AWC1931
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the order dated 23.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act) Basti in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2001 rejecting the application No. 3Ka moved for setting aside the judgment and award dated 31.8.2001 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 63 of 1990.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 63 of 1990, the appellant was one of the opposite parties and he absented on 24.8.2001, the date which was fixed for hearing of the above claim petition. An order was passed to proceed ex parte against the appellant and ultimately on 31.8.2001 the award was given against the appellant ex parte. In this application for restoration the appellant pleaded that he had not absented deliberately on the date of hearing of the above petition. He contended that he had been ill from 19.8.2001 to 29.9.2001 and therefore, he could not app...
Nand Lal Saran Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2139
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner retired as Junior Engineer Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 30.4.1996. A Government accommodation had been allotted to him at A-5 Ram Ganga Colony, Dhampur, district Bijnor.3. After his retirement he should have vacated the premises as it was a Government accommodation but he did not do so. Consequently penal rent has been charged. Against that order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.4. We are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case.5. The petitioner being a Government servant should have realised that he cannot retain the Government accommodation after his retirement in the year 1996 and he should have vacated the same but it appears that he is still in possession in the said premises even after about eight years of his retirement. This was most improper because if a Government servant does not vacate the premises which he is occupyin...
Nalini and Associates and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2075
ORDERM. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of the plots in question, which was stated to be agricultural land in the report of respondent No. 3, NOIDA. Land Acquisition proceedings were held under the Land Acquisition Act, and the petitioners' prayed for exempting the land on the ground that it was abadi. That representation was rejected by the impugned order dated 12.11.2003. Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA rejecting their representation. Copy of the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the land was acquired on 18.3.1984. Now this petition has been filed in the year 2004 praying for a direction to the Chairman, Board of Revenue to decide the petitioners' representation.4. In our opinion this is nothing but dilatory tactics. No doubt in some petitions such direc...
Raj Bahadur Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2401
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Raj Bahadur Verma has impugned the order dated 26-6-2003 issued by Mr. C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Uttar Pradesh Administration on behalf of Government of Uttar Pradesh, detaining him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.The detention order along with grounds of detention, which are also dated 26 June, 2003 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 30 June, 2003 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure No. 1 collectively to the writ petition.(2) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. In short their perusal shows as under :--On 21-12-2002 at about 9-30 p.m. a police party of Police Station Jaidpur, distr...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(All.)473
1. ITA Nos. 762 & 763/All/1999 by the Revenue are directed against the common order of CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 18th May, 1999 in the case of both the assessees-respondents in respect of block period from 1st April, 1986 to 13th Feb., 1997, Both the assessees-respondents have also directed CO Nos. 14 and 15/All/2000 in both the departmental appeals.2. ITA Nos. 304 & 305/All/2002 by both the assessees are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dt. 14th Aug., 2002 passed under Section 158BC/154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. In both the cases of the assessees, undisclosed income was computed and thereafter it was bifurcated in the case of both the assessees percentage wise on the identical facts. Since all the matters relate to the same assessees on identical facts, therefore, all the matters were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order.4. All the matters were directed to be taken up for out of turn hearing vide order dt. 7th Oct., 2002 passed in St...
Pradeep Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1273; (2004)2UPLBEC1142
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.1.2004 Annexure-20 to the writ petition by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected,2. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the owner of plot No. 12 of Khata No. 92 while petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 claim to be the owner of plot No. 12 of Khata No. 93.3. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that petitioner No. 1 had applied and had got registered his plot as a Nursery over the land belonging to him. True copy of the certificate dated 7.12.2000 which is valid from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2003, is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Similarly the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have been granted certificate by the District Garden Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar valid from 1.1.2001 till 31.12.2003 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioners have set up a Nursery in the land in question.4. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is admitted that the State Government has acqui...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »