Allahabad Court May 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.
Kalatmak Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST424(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Refusal to condone delay of about two years five months in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority has led to the filing of the present revision against the order of the Tribunal dated December 17, 2003 for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The applicant is a partnership firm consisting of four persons, namely, Raj Kumar Paliwal, Dinesh Chand Paliwal, Ashok Kumar Paliwal and Smt. Hridesh Paliwal. An ex parte assessment order was passed against the firm by the assessing authority on March 30, 2001 and a demand of Rs. 1,29,000 towards the trade tax was created. It is alleged that the copy of the said ex parte assessment order was not served on any of the partners but was served on Shri Rajiv Paliwal who is not a partner of the firm. Before the authorities below only this much was pleaded that Shri Rajiv Paliwal is not a partner of the firm. But before this Court on an affidavit being filed on April 28, 2004 in pursuance of the order dated March 18, 2004 ...
Reflex Industries and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3471
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 5 to release the petitioner's, factory at D-100 Sector II, NOIDA, District Gautambudh Nagar and to restrain respondents from interfering with the petitioner's business carried out in the aforesaid factory.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 Smt. Poonam Suri purchased the industrial plot in question along with building thereon from the previous owner M/s. Wazid Sons Exports Ltd., New Delhi by a registered sale deed dated 23.6.1987. The respondent No. 4 was allegedly in occupation of the said premises as tenant under its earlier owner M/s. Wazid Sons Exports Ltd. and as such he became the tenant of the respondent No. 3 by operation of law. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 decided to enter into fresh terms of tenancy and as such executed a registered lease deed dated 17.7.1987 with respect to the aforesaid disputed plot on a monthly rent...
Smt. Marjaddi Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3485; (2005)ILLJ850All; 2005(3)SLJ328(NULL)
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. The petitioner's husband Late Kam Singh, while working as a Cabin Man with the Railways died in harness on 26.2.1990. The sanction of pension, etc. except the death-cum-retirement gratuity was made to the petitioner by the department. The gratuity was withheld on the pretext of the petitioner having retained the Railway quarter till 1992. It is contended that she had initially requested the authorities for retention of the quarter for a period of six months, which was allowed. But later on, when she was to vacate it, she gave the intimation to the authorities after the expiry of six months' period. Nobody from the department came to take the possession from her. The authorities, however, took possession of the Railway quarter from the petitioner only on 27.8.1992. The death-cum-retirement gratuity was not paid for several years even after the petitionor made repeated requests to that effect to the D.R.M. concerned. The authorities later on gave direction for deduc...
Pradeep Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1377
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, with Sri Anant Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is decided at this stage in view of Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the result to the post of 'Bandi Rakshak' and issuance for writ of certiorari in quashing the order dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Principal Secretary, State Government and consequential order dated 22.7.2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the advertisement was published for recruitment to the post of 218 'Bandi Rakshak' under the Director General, Karagar Evam Prashasan Sudhar Sevayen, U.P., Lucknow in different range...
Chandra Bhan Gupta and anr. Vs. Viith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2326
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of respondent No. 4 from the premises in question alleging that the respondent No. 4 was in arrears of rent. A composite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act and under Section 80. C.P.C. was served upon the respondent, thereby terminating the tenancy. Inspite of terminating the tenancy, the respondent No. 4 did not vacate the premises nor paid the arrears of rent. Hence, a suit was filed for eviction of the respondent No. 4 before the Judge Small Cause Court.2. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent did not deposit the monthly rent and accordingly, the defence of the respondent No. 4 was struck off. The Judge Small Cause Court, after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for damages. The trial court held that the premises in question was a public building and that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court further held that the composite...
Manoj Kumar and anr. Vs. Principal, Industrial Training Institute and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2348
M. Katju and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.3.2004.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned judgment.3. The petitioners were appointed as assistant clerks in Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahr on 7.12.1988 on leave vacancy on a purely stop gap arrangement. Their services were dispensed with on 3.2.1990 against which they filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained an interim order. On the strength of that interim order, they continued in service for about 15 years.4. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the petitioners appointment gave them no right to the post. Their appointments were made on leave vacancy. There was no advertisement and selection committee and absolutely no process of selection was followed before appointing them. No one examined their age, educational qualification, eligibility, character or suitability. No se...
Delhi Prakashan Vitran (P.) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Court a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2351; [2004(102)FLR657]; (2004)IIILLJ986All; (2004)3UPLBEC2468
Arun Tandan, J.1. Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. K. Asthana, Advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned standing counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad passed an order dated 11.11.1985 demanding an amount from the petitioner, employers to the tune of Rs. 35,035.00 plus interest of Rs. 37,34.30 towards their contribution under Employees State Insurance Act. Against the said order, the employers filed the case in the Court of Employees State Insurance, Court Ghaziabad, being Case No. 181 of 1983, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the said suit the employers had also filed an application for waiver of the deposit of 15% of the disputed amount as required under Section 75(1B). The said waiver application has been rejected by Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad by means of a non-speaking order dated 20.6.1986. Against this ord...
Ram Chandra and ors. Vs. Hari Kirtan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All345; 2004(4)AWC3473
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for demolition of the construction and for possession. The plaintiff alleged that the land in question originally belonged to one Sri Ganga Ram and upon his death, the properly devolved upon his daughter Shyama Devi. Shyama Devi executed a sale deed dated 11-11-1970 in favour of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in possession as owner of the said land. The defendants had illegally raised construction on a portion of this land, which was wholly illegal, and that the said construction was liable to be demolished and the plaintiff was liable to be put back in possession. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute.2. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and contended that Ganga Ram or Shyama Devi were not the owners of the land in question and that the defendants came into exclusive possession on the basis of a private partition...
Smt. Aziz Begum and ors. Vs. Vth Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2739
S.U. Khan, J.1. In this writ petition arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard on 23.2.2004 and judgment was reserved. The Court did not have the advantage of hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents, as he did not appear even though the case was taken up in the revised list.2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit filed by landlord-respondent for his ejectment on the ground of default being S.C.C. Suit No. 588 of 1978 on the file of J.S.C.C., Bareilly. Suit was decreed on 23.2.1980, Tenant's revision (S.C.C. Revision No. 75 of 1980) was dismissed by Vth A.D.J., Bareilly on 1.5.1982, hence this writ petition. According to the plaint allegations rate of rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 19.50 till 15.7.19.72 and w.e.f. 15.7.1972 it was enhanced by 25% amounting to Rs. 24.39 per month. Provision of enhancement of rent on the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is provided for under Section 5 of the said Act. Under the said sectio...
Surendra Kumar Katiyar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (iv) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3173; [2004(102)FLR794]
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Mishra, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. B. Gupta on behalf of the respondent No. 3 as well as standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Sri Surendra Kumar, who was a class IV muster roll employee in the employment of respondent No, 3, was refused work w.e.f. 8th June, 1990 and his name from the muster roll was scored out on 27.7.1990 on the charges of unauthorised absence from duty.3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the employers, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government, in exercise of power Under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, vide notification dated 4.10.1991 referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 205 of 1991. The labour court, after affording opportunity to the parties concerned, by means of the award dated 27.7.1995 answered the reference in favour of the emp...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »