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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Spintex Trading Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC515(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Challenging the interpretation as put by the Tribunal on Section 15-A(l)(qq), before amendment by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995, the present revision has been filed and is directed against the order of the Tribunal passed in Second Appeal No. 247 of 1991 for the assessment year 1981-82. The two members of the Tribunal though reached to the same conclusion but they have delivered separate orders and for different reasoning, not agreeing with each other.2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The factual background of the case is that the dealer-opposite party, a registered dealer, both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act and it deals in mill stores, cotton tapes, etc. It purchased the goods from outside the State of U.P. and sold the same to the various persons within the State of U.P. by transfer of documents of title without taking the delivery of the goods. The assessing authority on scrutiny of the account books found that the dealer-opposite party has...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST259(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy the present revision has been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated June 20, 1992 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 28 of 1989 connected with 346 of 1989 for the assessment year 1981-82 (U.P.). The point of law involved in the revision is as follows:Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that coal cinder sold by the dealer is taxable at the rate of 4 per cent despite the fact that it is an unclassified commodity and it ought to be taxed accordingly?2. The Tribunal in its order under revision has held that sales of coal cinder is liable to be taxed as coal. The department treated the cinder coal as unclassified item and levied the tax at the rate of 8 per cent. The Tribunal has followed the order given by it in other appeals and has held that cinder is taxable as coal at the rate of four per cent.3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The dispute relates ...
Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs. Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2765b
Janardan Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was a clerk in the U. P. Power Corporation, He was involved in a criminal case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and was arrested and he was in jail from 27.11.1998. While still in Jail and order of suspension of the petitioner dated 1.12.1998 was passed by the Superintending Engineer who 'it is not disputed' is the appointing authority of the petitioner. The petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case on 16.8.1999 by the judgment of the VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge. On 30.8.1999, the petitioner submitted an application along with the copy of the judgment of acquittal seeking reinstatement. The Superintending Engineer passed the order of reinstatement on 7.9.1999. It appears that even before the petitioner was sent to jail he was absenting from 19.11.1998 to 26.11.1998. When he joined on 8.9.1999 the petitioner made an application to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division under whom he was working t...
Hari Ram Sahu Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2737
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition against whom suit for eviction (S.C.C. Suit No. 105 of 1994) filed by landlord respondent has been decreed on the ground of denial of title alone. Question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was decided in favour of tenant petitioner. The suit was decreed by J.S.C.C., Jhansi through judgment and decree dated 26.2.2000. Tenant petitioner filed a revision against the said judgment and decree being S.C.C. Revision No. 40 of 2000. Revisional court dismissed the revision by judgment and order dated 20.10.2003, hence this writ petition.2. According to the courts below, in the written statement filed by tenant in earlier proceedings initiated against him by landlord under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Case No. 45 of 1993) on the file of prescribed authority/Civil Judge Jhansi, tenant petitioner denied the title of landlord respondent. Copy of release application is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It was...
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3534
Pradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhra, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sandeep Dixit and Sri Rakesh Nigam for the State.2. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband, who was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Medical Officer in the State Ayurveda Evam Unani Chikitsa Sewa Samvarg, died prior to the enforcement of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (on the posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001. These rules have come into force on 20.12.2001, whereas the husband of the petitioner died on 3.5.2000. On the 'death of the, husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension at the rate of Rs. 4,825 per month and this pension was paid till June, 2001. It appears that thereafter a complaint was made by one Dr. Misra saying that the petitioner was not entitled for family pension since the matter of regularisation of services of the husband of the petitioner could not be finalised in his life time and the petitioner's...
Ram Kumar Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3463
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. N. Tripathi, advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Original Suit No. 485 of 1982 was filed by one Smt. Saraswati Devi, who is the respondent No. 3 in the present petition for eviction and arrears of rent and damages against tenant Sri Ram Kumar, who is the petitioner. In the said suit Issue No. 5 was framed, as to whether the suit as filed by the plaintiff was maintainable or not. The said issue was decided as a preliminary Issue. Thereafter the trial court heard the matter on merits and vide judgment and order dated 12.12.1983 partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed to the extent of arrears of rent and damages while the relief of eviction was refused on the ground that the tenancy of the defendant had not been terminated after valid...
Modi Rubber Limited a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 19 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas32(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.3.2004 in Company Petition No. 1 of 2002 Modi Rubber Limited v. Madura Coats Limited. An impleadment application has been filed on behalf of Phillips Carbon Black Limited which we have allowed.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The facts of the case are given in some detail in the impugned order dated 12 3.2004 It appears that a bunch of creditors' petitions were filed in this Court praying for winding up of M/s Modi Rubber Limited on the ground that the said company is unable to pay its huge debts. On 13.3.2002 the Court passed an order giving its prima facie finding that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts and injuncted the respondent company from dealing with or encumbering any of its assets without seeking prior permission of the Court. Thereafter by order dated 17.5.2002 it was held by the Court that there...
Suresh Chand Agarwal Vs. Director General of Income-tax (investigation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)274; [2004]269ITR22(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the cash amount of Rs. 6 lakhs seized from the petitioner from his residence as well as Rs. 1,40,000 seized from his bank locker No. 66 with the State Bank of India, Brindaban Gate, Mathura. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to hand over the custody of the seized material to the petitioner including the valuables seized from his residence.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It is alleged in para. 3 of the petition that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of manufacturing of perfumed supari under the brand name of 'Sweety Supari' and selling the same in his proprietary set up known as 'Shree Girraj Supari Traders'. It is alleged that in relation to such business activities as also other...
Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All366; 2004(3)AWC2327
ORDERM. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the demand of increased premium in respect of Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme as contained in letter dated 15.12.1997 and 27.1.1998 by the Life Insurance Corporation as arbitrary and illegal. It has also been prayed that the Life Insurance Corporation be directed to renew the Group Insurance Policy on same terms and conditions as mentioned in the policy Rules dated 19.9.1995 without demanding any increased premium.2. The petitioner is a statutory body constituted under Section 18 of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. By the G.O. dated 18.9.1988 the conditions of the service of the employees of the petitioner are the same which are applicable to employees of the Nagar Maha Palikas.3. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the Group Insurance Scheme was introduced by the Life Insurance Corporation on the basis of the mutual agreement with ...
Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and anr. Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2339
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is the landlady of the shop in question, which has been let out to respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of respondent No. 3 on the ground of default in the payment of rent and also on the ground that a portion of the shop had been sublet to one Jagan Nath, who was running a pan shop from a portion of the premises in question. During the pendency of the suit Sri Jagan Nath died and his heirs were arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. The defendant respondent No. 3 contested the suit and contended that he had not committed any default in the payment of rent nor had sublet the shop to Jagan Nath. The respondent No. 3 stated that Jagan Nath was running a pan shop outside the shop on the road and no portion of the shop had been let out to Jagan Nath.3. The trial court after determining the points in issue held that the respondent No. 3 did not commit any default in the payment of rent. The trial court, however, found that the respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »