Allahabad Court May 2004 Judgments

Jugal Kishore Arora Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)174; [2004]269ITR133(All)

1. These three income-tax appeals involve common questions of law and fact and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The assessee owns a plant nursery where he grows ornamental and decorative plants which he sells and derives income therefrom. The assessee alleges that this is agricultural income as he performs agricultural operation. He has relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy : [1957]32ITR466(SC) .4. However, the assessing authority did not accept the appellant's plea, and hence held that the assessee's income was not agricultural income. True copy of the assessment order dated November 9, 2000, for the assessment year 1998-99 is annexure I to the appeal.5. Against the assessment order of the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur, who held that the income is agricultural income and hence exempt from income-ta...

Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Vs. Ram Sajan Shukla and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2619

Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. The respondent No. 1 Ram Sajan Shukla had challenged the order dated 14.10.1985, passed by the respondent No. 4 rejecting his candidature for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer in the department.2. The respondent No. 1/ petitioner was working as Beldar in Tube Well Division of Irrigation Department, district Kanpur and while serving, he had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and had made application for recruitment as Junior Engineer for which the I.I.T., Kanpur, was duly authorised to conduct the test, etc. The respondent No. 4 on due scrutiny found that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled for the direct recruitment and his candidature was rejected. Being aggrieved with this rejection, the Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1986 was filed by the respondent No. 1, which was finally disposed of by the learned single Judge vide order dated 27.11.1992 directing the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion as Junior Engineer within a period of on...

Balagat HusaIn Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2754

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises in question on the ground that the defendant committed a default in the payment of rent. The defendant contested the suit and submitted that he was not a defaulter and that he had remitted the rent by money order, which was refused and, thereafter, the defendant had deposited the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The trial court after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit and held that the defendant was defaulter and was in arrears of rent. The trial court found that the deposit made by the defendant under Section 30 of the Act was illegal and that the defendant ought to have offered the amount to the landlord after receiving the notice and in the event the landlord refused to accept the rent, only then the tenant could deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. The trial court found that pursuant to the notice dated 1.6.1984 the defendant had not paid the ...

Vijai Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Management Committee, Pyarey Singh Purva ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2925

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their services as assistant teachers in C.T. Grade in the defendant's educational institution. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendant be directed to pay the salary w.e.f. September, 1980 onwards. The plaintiffs alleged that they have been working as assistant teachers since 17.7.1978 and that they have been illegally removed by verbal order of the manager w.e.f, 29.12.1981. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant's institution was a recognized institution under the Basic Education Act and that the provision of Rule 11 of U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) are applicable, which stipulates that no teacher of a recognised school shall be dismissed or removed except by a prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhika...

Naresh, Jagpal, Shyam Singh Sons of Sohan and Bharat Son of Mahendra S ... Overruled

Court: Allahabad

S.K. Agarwal and Imtiyaz Murtaza, JJ.1. This appeal was preferred by lour appellants, viz. Naresh, Jagpal, Shyam Singh and Bharat, against their conviction under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., 307/34 I.P.C. and 379/34 I.P.C. Consequently, they were sentenced under the first count to life imprisonment, under the second count to R.I. for five years and under the third count to R.I. for two years. All the sentences were to run concurrently.2. The brief resume of the facts of this case, as disclosed by the F.I.R., is as under:On 16.10.1979 in the morning when Naresh was digging the Chak road to cause a passage from the field of the informant, he was desisted by Balak Ram in doing so. Naresh not only abused Balak Ram but also assaulted him. He threatened him too. Accordingly, Balak Ram lodged a report of the incident at about 9.30 A.M. at P.S. Kampil. He was accompanied to the police station by the informant Subedar Singh and their uncle Shree Ram. The injured Balak Ram and Shree Ram possessed rif...

Notified Area Vs. Third Additional District Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2004All371; 2004(4)AWC3170

ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5th December, 1988 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 316 of 1988 (Masiullah and Ors. v. Notified Area Titron) filed against the order dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge, Saharanpur in Original Suit No. 57 of 1985 (Masiullah and Ors. v. Town Area, Titron).3. The Plaintiffs, namely, Sri Masiullah filed a suit, being Original Suit No. 57 of 1985 against the Notified Area, Titron, Pargana Gangoh, Tehsil Nakur, District Saharanpur, seeking injunction to restrain the petitioner and its employees from interfering in the plaintiffs' possession as well as the construction being raised by the Plaintiffs.4. In the plaint it is mentioned that the name of t...

Smt. Vidyawati and ors. Vs. Devendra Kumar and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2758

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and for possession of the premises in question. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a tenant and was in arrears of rent. The premises in question was constructed in the year 1975 and. therefore, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in question. The plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy. The plaintiff alleged that the said notice was duly served upon the defendant and inspite of the expiry of the period, the arrears of rent was not paid nor did the defendant vacate the premises in question.2. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he was not in arrears of rent and that the tenanted portion was not constructed in the year 1975 and was constructed much earlier and that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in question. The defendant further stated that the...

R.R. Brick Factory Vs. Commissioner of Sale Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2004]137STC297(All)

Parkas Krishna, J.1. These six revisions at the instance of the dealer were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. Identical question of law and fact are involved.2. A short question for consideration in these revisions is whether the appellate authority as defined under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is entitled to allow the appeal filed under Section 9 of the Act and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration notwithstanding the fact that an application to withdraw the appeal was filed by the dealer before the hearing of the appeal itself. The assessment years involved in these revisions are 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. The applicant is a partnership firm and carried on the business of manufacturing and selling the bricks. The assessing officer rejected the account books of the dealer and framed the best judgment assessment orders in all these years. Aggrieved against the aforesaid assessment orders the dealer filed appeals under Section 9...

Vishwa Nath and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3141

Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar. counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhakar Pandey, advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29th November, 2003 passed by Board of Revenue, order dated 3rd January, 1998 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia and the order dated 13th November, 1997 passed by Naib Tahsildar, City, Ballia in proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are ; one Ram Sunder was recorded tenure holder. Ram Sunder died on 12th April, 1993 leaving behind the petitioners as his two sons, respondent No. 5 as widow of predeceased son Jadunath and respondent No. 4 as widow of predeceased grandson. A report under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 claiming mutation was submitted by the petitioners on 19th April. 1993 on the basis of registered Will dated 5th June, 1989 claimed to be executed by Ram Sunder i...

State of U.P. Vs. A.D.J. Vith and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3479

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit before the Judge Small Cause Court for ejectment of the tenant and for possession alleging therein that they are the owners and landlords of the accommodation in question and that the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of demand, the tenant had failed to pay the rent. The plaintiffs further alleged that a composite notice Under Section 80, C.P.C. read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was duly served upon the tenant and inspite of service of notice, the accommodation in question was not vacated nor the arrears of rent had been paid. The plaintiff also submitted that the building in question is a public building and was exempted from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The State of U. P. who is the tenant, contested the claim and submitted that they are not in arrears of rent and that they had deposited the entire rent, water tax etc. Under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13, of 1972. The tenant further submitt...