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.
Devendra Kumar Vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2318
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 18.3.1999 passed by the Additional Director (Administration) of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad,, (inshort called 'Mandi Parishad'), U.P. Lucknow (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) and the order dated 10.3.1999 passed by the Director, 'Mandi Parishad', as referred in the order dated 18.9.1999. The petitioner has inter alia prayed for other relief including for quashing the unreasonable terms and conditions incorporated in the letter dated 5.7.1995 of the Managing Director, Sugar Corporation (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) so much so saying that the service of the petitioner had automatically come to an end after expiry of period of one year from the date of joining at 'Mandi Parishad'.2. Heard Sri V.B., Upadhaya, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vidya Bhushan Upadhaya, for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 and Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned Couns...
In Re: Ratan Housing Development Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas24(All); (2004)4CompLJ426(All); [2005]58SCL274(All)
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Ratan Housing Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company) having its registered office at 55/57, Generalganj, Kanpur, seeks amalgamation under Chapter V of the Companies Act, 1956, with the transferor company, Graceful Properties Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) having its registered office at 102, Stephen House, BBD Bagh (East), Kolkatta in accordance with the scheme of amalgamation annexed as annexure A to this company petition.2. On hearing the company application No. 20 of 2003, this court on August 28, 2003, dispensed with the meeting of the shareholders of the transferee company for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, for approving with or without modification, the scheme of amalgamation by which the transferor company was proposed to be amalgamated with the transferee company. Since there were no creditors in the transferee company consequently the meeting of the creditors was required to be called...
Kamla Prasad Mohan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC153(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated October 26, 1991 passed under Section 15-A(l)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicant is a registered dealer. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1987-88. It carried on the business of selling yarn including Resham yarn. It purchased 25 bales of resham yarn valued at Rs. 10,11,433.50/- from M/s. Sugandha Brothers, Howrah. The entire lot of 25 bales of resham yarn was brought from Howrah to Mughalsarai as personal luggage through Kalka Mail on October 7, 1987. On reaching Mughalsarai on October 8, 1987 the goods were booked from Mughalsarai to Varanasi vide Railway receipt No. P/167427 and P-167428. Varanasi is not en route of Kalka Mail. Form XXXI was got endorsed by the officer referred to in Sub-section (3) of section 28-A of the Act on October 27, 1987. A penalty proceeding after issuing show cause notice, was issued by the assessing authority on the...
K.A. Wadhwani Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3505
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, which has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the caption 'Public Interest Litigation' petitioner Mr. K.A. Wadhwani, who styles himself as a Social Worker, having interest in causes of public, has made the following prayers to this Court :'(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to prevent the abuse of the park in future ;(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7, S.S.P., Lucknow, S.O. Gomti Nagar, to take strict legal action against the opposite party No. 8 in accordance with the provisions of law ;(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 8 to give damages of rupees 2 lacs to the N.G.O. Harit Prabhat for development of the park to its earlier beauty ;(iv) allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties.'2. The factual matrix, in brief...
Ashthabhuja Prasad Dubey and ors. Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3591
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Rai on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. N. Saxena, senior advocate, assisted by Sri D. K. Singh for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and standing counsel for the other respondents.2. On 23rd September, 1968, a society in the name of Hari Shyam Khadi Gramodyog Seva Sangh was registered with the Registrar, Firms, Socicties and Chits with Registration No. 710/1968-69. The said society claims to have established in the year, 1968 a junior high school by the name of Uttar Pradeshiya Balika Vidyalaya Junior High School, Malak Harhar, district Allahabad. Sri Ashthabhuja Prasad Dubey was the Secretary. The said Junior High School was granted recognition as a Junior High School under order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad, dated 24th January, 1970. The said Ashthabhuja Prasad Dubey was also the Manager of the said institution, The institution was brought under grant-in-aid list of the State in the yea...
The Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. S/S Doneria Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR35(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Both these revisions were heard together as common question of law and facts are involved and relates to the assessment year 1981- 82 (Central) and 1982-83. The assessee is the same and issues are also the same, though the order of the Tribunal is different. Learned counsel for the parties have (sic) agreed that both the revisions may be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts are given with reference to the assessment order 1981- 82 (Central) and it arises out of Second appeal No. 418 of 1987 decided by its order-dated 30-11-1991. Second appeal No. 314 of 1990 connected with 380 of 1990 and 381 of 1990 for the assessment year 1982- 83 (Central) decided on 30-11-1991.3. The opposite party is a dealer and deals in the manufacture and sale of C.I. Casting pipes and pipefitting. It disclosed taxable turnover at Rs. 124,52,578.63 for the assessment year 1981-82 (Central). The disclosed turnover was not accepted by the assessing authority. It also partly rejected...
Wheels (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST48(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise out of a common order of the Tribunal dated October 22, 2003 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 15A(1)(qq) of the Act. The assessing authority levied penalty under the aforesaid section for the month of October, 1999, both under the U.P. and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground that the dealer-applicant having not admitted any tax realised the tax from customers for the month of October, 1999 in U.P. and in Central.2. The applicant is a private limited company and carries on the manufacture and sale of wheels generally used in tractors. It claimed itself a new unit within the meaning of Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and applied for grant of eligibility certificate under backward integration scheme. An application under Section 4A was filed on July 16, 1997. It remained pending and ultimately it was granted on Septe...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Doneria Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST459(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Both these revisions were heard together as 1 common question of law and facts are involved and relates to the assessment years 1981-82 (Central) and 1982-83. The assessee is the same and issues are also the same, though the order of the Tribunal is different. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that both the revisions may be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts are given with reference to the assessment year 1981-82 2 (Central) and it arises out of Second Appeal No. 418 of 1987 decided by its order dated November 30,1991. Second Appeal No. 314 of 1990 connected with 380 of 1990 and 381 of 1990 for the assessment year 1982-83 (Central) decided on November 30, 1991.3. The opposite party is a dealer and deals in the manufacture and sale of 3 C.I. Casting pipes and pipefitting. It disclosed taxable turnover at Rs. 124,52,578.63 for the assessment year 1981-82 (Central). The disclosed turnover was not accepted by the assessing authority. It also partl...
Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. Zila Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2457
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioners who were plaintiff in a suit after dismissal of the suit filed appeal before the lower appellate court and before the lower appellate court filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint at the appellate stage. This application has been' dismissed by the lower appellate court with the observation as under :'Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that sufficient pleadings taking the grounds of acquiring title by way of adverse possession has already been taken by the plaintiff/appellant in suit. The plaintiff has not given the sufficient reasons as to why he could not assert these words in suit at earliest opportunity, so the amendment application is not liable to be allowed. These facts were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. This amendment application being paper No. Ka-38 has no merit and therefore, liable to be rejected.'3. Learned counsel for the petitioner...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. S.N. Sharma and Company and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2466
K.S. Rakhra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the judgment and the order dated 22nd October, 1997 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bijnor in an appeal under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997, thereby the judgment and decree dated 23rd November, 1996 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bijnor in O.S. No. 42 of 1995, was reversed and the fard has been made rule of the Court.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection with the maintainability of the revision under Section 115, C.P.C. on the ground that the provisions ofSection 115, C.P.C. as amended in their application to State of Uttar Pradesh, bar the filing of the revision against orders other than the order passed in original suits and other proceedings of similar nature. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the impugned order in this revision and the order passed in appeal by the Additional District...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »