Allahabad Court April 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.
Bachau Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2807
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1959 as a Bus Conductor on temporary basis with the U. P. Government Roadways (now U. P. State Road Transport Corporation). On 15,4.1987, while the petitioner was taking the Bus No. 415 as its Conductor, in a surprise check by the Traffic Inspector it was found that 10 passengers were travelling without tickets. The Traffic Inspector realized the fare and penalty from such passengers. Thereafter again on 25.4.198,7 when the petitioner was deputed as Bus Conductor on another Bus on Varanasi-Jamania route, the checking authorities found that 22 passengers were travelling without tickets. Thereafter on 30.4.1987, the Regional Manager of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner to which a reply was submitted on 7.5.1987. The enquiry report was submitted on 14.9.1987. On 16.9.1987, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which a reply was filed on 24.10.1987. The Regional Manage...
Dharmendra Deo Mishra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ180
ORDERI.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and Sri G. S. Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.2. In this case a counter-affidavit was filed by earlier standing counsel of CBI Sri Giridhar Nath, which is on record. However, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed annexing the documents and the orders of the learned Court below and as such this Court is to see whether the charge-sheet filed by the CBI in the Court of the Magistrate was proper or not and hence for that purpose no counter affidavit was required at all.3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner, while he was posted as Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'G.D.A.') in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-1983 put an application personally to Sri S. K. Goswami, I.A.S. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the then Chairman G.D.A. for allotment of a plot in Surya Nagar/Ch...
Quality Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All3; 2004(4)AWC3782; 2005(2)CTLJ250(All)
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner firm, who is engaged in supply of meat groups items to the Military Stations seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21.4.2003, contained in Annexure-1, whereby the name of the petitioner-firm has been removed from the approved list of A.S.C. contractors and also prayed, for a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties not to treat the petitioner firm as an unregistered A.S.C. firm.2. M/s. Quality Traders has questioned the correctness and validity of the order dated 21.4.2003, passed by the Major General, M.G. A.S.C. by means of which the name of the petitioner firm has been removed from the approved list of Army Supply Corps Contractors primarily on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice ; the procedure as prescribed under Regulation 26 was n...
State of U.P. Vs. Brijendra Malviya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2661; [2004(102)FLR446]; (2004)IIILLJ903All
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A.P. Sahi and Girish Malviya for the respondents.2. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.5.2003. We have carefully perused the said judgment. We agree with the direction of the learned single Judge that the petitioners (respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in this appeal) should be considered for regularisation in accordance with the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment (on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001. However, we do not agree with certain other directions given in the said judgment. For instance the learned single Judge after giving the direction that the petitioners should be considered for regularisation has thereafter in the same sentence given a direction that the petitioners are also entitled to regular wages in the regular pay scale from 17.2.2001. Thus, we find that there is a contradiction in the same sentence of the learned single Judge. In our opinion, the lear...
Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2824
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri M. D. Singh 'Shekhar' on behalf of the petitioner and standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No body is present on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.2. Twice notices have been forwarded under order of this Court to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Office reports dated 10th July, 1993 and dated 28th January, 2004, establish that the notices sent to the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 have neither returned undelivered nor acknowledge due has been received after service. In such circumstances service upon the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is deemed sufficient in view of the provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court.3. In respect of plot Nos. 363, 364. 141, 359/1, 359/2, 352/3, 359/4. 359/5, 360, 361M, 363M, 364M and 369 situate in village Jatwara Kalan, pargana Loni tehsil and district Ghaziabad, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 9th February, 1962 and possession thereof was taken on 26.5.1963.4. ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Maha Laxmi Chemicals
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: [2006]145STC528(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated February 12, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly in Second Appeal No. 711 of 1988.2. The opposite party-dealer carried on the business of manufacture and sale of sulphur and sulphur's sludge. It disclosed for the assessment year 1985-86 a taxable turnover of Rs. 37,12,970. The assessing authority has accepted its account books but was of the view that the sale of sulphur sludge is taxable as waste products and as unclassified item and is taxable at the rate of eight per cent. It accepted the disclosed turnover of sulphur sludge amounting to Rs. 3,18,240 and levied the tax at the rate of eight per cent vide order dated May 25, 1989. This order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by the order dated October 12, 1989. The Tribunal by the order under revision has held that sulphur sludge is not a waste product and is not liable to be taxed as unclassified item. Challenging the legality and pro...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kumar Motors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2007)5VST643(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated August 13, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, in Second Appeal No. 184 of 1990 for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The dealer-opposite party was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1984-85 on the turnover of Rs. 1,05,01,985. The said order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, under Section 10-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 on the basis that the assessee had purchased Vikram three wheeler chassis by issuing form III-A to M/s. Scooters India Limited. Similarly no purchase tax was paid by it on the purchase of auto rickshaw body from M/s. Apollo Builders, a sister concern of M/s. Scooters India Limited by issuing form III-A. The revising authority imposed the purchase tax as the goods were not resold in the same form and condition. The Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the revising authority and held that the end-product that is mounted body on chassis is ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Melrose Biscuit Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC701(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The dealer opposite-party deals in the manufacture and sale of bread, biscuits, 'namkeens', etc. The dispute in these two revisions relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The following common question of law has been raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the above revisions:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to dismiss the appeal of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. and partly allow the appeal of the assessee by holding that the salted preparation of maida termed as kachri by the assessee was covered by Notification No. ST-2-5788 dated September 7, 1981 and, therefore, exempt from tax though kachri has been held to be a preparation from rice by the honourable High Court in the case of Kasturi Lal & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1987 UPTC 1298 whereas in the present case the impugned commodity was prepared out of maida which is altogether different commodity like potato chi...
Triveni Structurals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST447(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is an application to recall the order dated March 12, 2004 dismissing the revision at the time of the admission on the ground that it lacks merit.Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the revision apparently does not disclose any ground to recall the aforesaid order except that the following two questions of law were involved in the case:1. Whether, under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trade Tax Tribunal as well as authority below were justified to register the appeal as defective, despite under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act the revisionist company has been declared as sick unit and by the order of the State Government, the revisionist company was also under the scheme of 'deferment of the payment of tax'?2. Whether, under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Tribunal as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. United Tractors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST730(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated July 18,1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Camp at Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No. 90 of 1991 for the assessment year 1987-88.The opposite party deals in tractors, scooters, motor vehicles and three wheelers and parts thereof. The assessing authority for the assessment year 1986-87 accepted the disclosed sales but rejected certain claims of the dealer-opposite party. It imposed tax on the purchase of chassis and body made against form III-A and also on the sales of trailers. The dealer-opposite party had refuted its liability on the turnover of the aforesaid three items. The assessment order dated July 31, 1990 was modified and reversed by the first appellate authority by order dated October 26,1990 and the said order has been confirmed in second appeal by the Tribunal. The first question which has been raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is regarding the taxability of trailers. The assessing a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »