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.
Ram Lalit (In Jail) Vs. Adhikshak, District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3548
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order 29th June, 2003, passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.2. The grounds of detention are contained in annexure-2 to the writ petition. The detention order was passed on the basis of the F. I. R. relating to crime No. 231 of 2003, P. S. Kotwali, Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, inter alia under Section 302, I. P. C. The incident had taken place on 20-4-2003 at about 2 p.m. On the exhortation of the petitioner, his associates variously armed allegedly shot dead one Ram Ashish and caused firearm injuries to his companion Ajit Kumar who had come forward to his rescue. The dead body of Ram Ashish was allegedly dragged on the road upto his (petitioner's) door. This offence was allegedly committed near Vinod Rice Mill Gajpur, Police Station Khalilabad when Ram Ashish and his companions Ram Govind, Ajit Kum...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nargis and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: III(2006)ACC296
M. Katju, J.1. Admit.2. Issue notice to the respondents.3. This appeal has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short referred to as 'the Act'). It has been held in a series of decisions by the Apex Court and this Court, e.g., in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 , that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 are satisfied an insurance company has no right of appeal unless it is on the ground mentioned in Section 149(2). Section 170 of the aforesaid Act states that the insurance company can be impleaded provided the Tribunal for the reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that there is collusion between the claimant and the opposite party or that the opposite party has failed to contest the claim. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid section it is obvious that the Tribunal before impleading the insurance company has to record its reasons in writing about satisfaction...
Devendra Kumar Nailwal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1982; (2004)3UPLBEC2928
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a Member of U.P. Nyayik Sewa and is presently posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the orders contained in Annexure-8 and Annexure-10 to the writ petition, rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner against the adverse remarks for the year 2000-2001 and also for a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner in Higher Judicial Service cadre (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.J.S.' cadre for the sake of brevity) with effect from 15.5.2001, the date on which persons junior to the petitioner were given promotion.2. Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are, that the petitioner was appointed as a Member of U.P. Nyayik Sewa on 5.8.1985 and was posted as Munsif, Nainital. On 5.8.1990 ...
Cit Vs. Prem Chand and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN355(All)
ORDERWe have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Vikram. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This is an ITR under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax excluding the share income from M/s. Shamli Service Station, Shamli from the hands of the HUF v. Prem Chand & Sons ?'3. The aforesaid question referred by the Tribunal is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Brahma Swarup & Sons (2002) 253 ITR 604. It has been held that partial partition between the groups of HUF members was valid and the question is covered by the aforesaid decision.4. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava Vs. Smt. Santosh Kumari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All333; 2004(3)AWC2097
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The present civil revision arises out of an order and judgment dated 27.5.1989 passed by the District Judge, Ballia allowing the substitution application No. 4-Ka. The facts leading to the present revision is that Original Suit No. 85 of 1983 was filed by the plaintiff. Raj Kishore Prasad through next best friend Smt. Santosh Kumari for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the defendant Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava. Before the trial court an application was filed by the plaintiff to contest the suit as an indigent person. The said application was allowed by the trial court against which the defendant Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava filed a Civil Revision No. 204 of 1983. During the pendency of this revision the plaintiff died and the defendant moved a substitution application to implead the heirs of the plaintiff. The said substitution application was allowed by order dated 8.4.1985 and the heirs of the plaintiff Raj Kishore Prasad were impleaded in the Civil R...
Desh Raj Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2676
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner-detenu Desh Raj Verma has impugned the order dated 30-5-2003, issued by Mr. C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Govt. of U. P., on behalf of Govt. of U. P., 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 the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-5-2003, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 7-6-2003 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 6 and 5 respectively to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu warranting the issuance of the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure-5). A perusal of the grounds of detention shows as under :--On 15-1-2003, sometimes between 9.00 A, M. and 10.00 A. M., when a police party of Police Station Zaidpur...
Cit Vs. U.P. (Rohilkhand) Tarai Veej and Vikas Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN356(All)
ORDERWe have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This is an ITR under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the income derived by the assessee company was exempt under section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 19613. The question referred to us is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. U.P. State Warehousing Corpn. : [1991]187ITR541(SC) , wherein it has been held that the income of the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation is exempted from payment of tax.4. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Cit Vs. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN357(All)
ORDERWe heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for appellant learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This is an ITR under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the expenditure on the construction of a temple represented one for the welfare of the assessee's employees and, as such, allowable as deduction ?'3. The question referred to us is covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1992]198ITR500(Delhi) . We have gone through the decision and we agree with the reasons given in the aforesaid decision.4. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee....
Ashish Kumar Baxi Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1519; (2004)IIILLJ978All
Dilip Gupta, J.1. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.1990 by which he has been dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank and the order dated 9.1.1992. by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.2. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at length.3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct committed by him while he was posted and functioned as the Branch Manager of Laluli Branch, district Fatehpur. The articles of charge and statement of allegations of misconduct in support of articles of charge were served upon the petitioner through the memorandum dated 10.12.1988. The charges against the petitioner were as follows :'(1) He did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, but in fact took such steps, as were derogatory, detrimental, prejudicial and injur...
Sharda Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1649; (2004)2UPLBEC1140
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the notice dated 6.3.2002 Annexure-5 to the petition and not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute as it is abadi land which is situated on Khasra Nos. 586 and 606a. It is further prayed that construction on the land in question may not be demolished.2. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 6.3.2002.3. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioners were the residents of Village Shadarpur Mauza Bhakhtawarpur district Gautam Budh Nagar since their forefathers. The impugned notice dated 6.3.2002 has been issued for acquisition of the abadi of the petitioners. It is also alleged that in the revenue records it has been recorded as abadi land vide Annexure-1 to the petition and it is also alleged that a notification was issued by the State Government on 28.11.2001 for acquisition of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »