Allahabad Court August 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.
Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2759
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. On 6th August, 2004 while dismissing the writ petition, I have pronounced and pass the following order:'For the reasons and observations to be followed the writ petition is dismissed, subject to condition that the petitioner shall not be compelled to discharge duty under the administrative and financial control of the Gram Panchayat. State Government shall pass appropriate Government Orders forthwith in the light of observation made in the judgment.'Now the reasons and observations in dismissing the writ petition are as under :2. Heard Shri Ashok Kharc, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri V.D. Chauhan learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sudhir Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General.3. The admitted fact of the cases is that the petitioners were working as Kisan Sahayak in the Agricultural Department and in pursuance to Government Order dated 12th April, 1999 they were appointed as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikaris. Now by the impugned order petitioners h...
Uma Shanker Srivastava (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC784a
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the landlord for arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed accommodation, approached the revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The revisional court maintained the order of the trial court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since in the writ petition he has denied the title of the landlord therefore, the plaint should have been returned back to the plaintiff for its presentation before the regular side and that not been done so, the suit is wrongly decreed. It is admitted fact that since the petitioner-tenant has not complied with the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his defence was struck off and the order striking off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been challenged by the petitioner. The fi...
Dharam Pal Singh Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)158; [2004]271ITR223(All)
1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, Dharam Pal Singh, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 filed as Annex. 2 to the writ petition and other consequential relief.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :The petitioner is an individual. He claims to be a senior citizen. He is drawing pension. He voluntarily filed the return for the asst. yr. 1997-98. The ITO, Ward-2, Hapur, issued notices dt. 26th March, 2002, under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reassess the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. According to the respondents, the notice was served personally on the petitioner on 28th March, 2002, which is being strongly denied by the petitioner. By way of abundant caution the ITO, Ward-2, Hapur, resp...
Suresh Chandra Vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2470
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learneed Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.R. Mishra, learneed Counsel for the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority. 2. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 4.1.99 passed by respondent/Ghaziabad Development Authority and for writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to regularise service of the petitioner from 1.1.88 to the class IV category i.e., to the post of peon or Security Guard and for payment of arrears of salary in the regular pay scale like other employees since the month of March, 1994.3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was deployed as a daily wager peon since 1.1.88 and had continued to work in the said capacity from time to time with break. He filed Writ Petition No. 34733 of 1992 claiming relief of reguiarisation and for granting the regular pay scale in view of the Government Order dated 21.10.1989 claiming that some juniors to ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nath Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)328; [2005]273ITR432(All)
1. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, for opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deposits received by the assessee-company from its directors and shareholders are outside the purview of Section 40A(8) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, M/s Nath Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessment year involved is 1978-79 for which the previous year ended on 30th Sept., 1977.3. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1978-79, the ITO found that the assessee paid interest of Rs. 64,600 to its directors on their deposits totalling Rs. 3,40,000. The ITO invoked the prqyisions of Section 40A(8) of the Act and disallowed 15 per cent of the interest paid to the directors, i.e., a sum of Rs. 9,690.4. The assessee went in appeal and the CIT(A) deleted the addition of...
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)332
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to as an Act, for opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the sum of Rs. 31,415 payable by the assessee as interest under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase-tax) Act, 1961, in the computation of its business profits for the asst. yr. 1976-77?'2. We have heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue. The question as to whether the interest paid on the amount of purchase-tax under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Act is allowable deduction or not has been considered by five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT, (1983) 144 ITR 732 (All)(FB) wherein this Court has held that Interest on late payment of sugarcane purchase-tax is an allowable deduc...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Pradeep Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3686; (2005)ILLJ148All; (2004)3UPLBEC2692
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ1. This Special Appeal has been filed agains the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.4.2003.2. The respondent No. 1, Pradeep Sinha, died and his heirs have been impleaded by our order passed on the impleadment application today.3. This is a classic case of harassment of an employee by his own employer, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.). The respondent-Pradeep Sinha was a conductor in the service of U.P.S.R.T.C. He got cancer and hence he had to go to Bombay for treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. that Pradeep Sinha genuinely got cancer. Hence it was expected that the Corporation would have behaved like an ideal employer and would have provided medical expenses and travelling expenses etc., to the petitioner taking a humanitarian view. The Corporation should have also told Pradeep Sinha and his relatives that the Corporation will look-after him and do all...
Vasundhara Vyapar Mandal Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC727; (2004)3UPLBEC2770
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the respondents U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, their servants, agents and/or assignees from demolishing the constructions of members of the petitioner's Society or non-conforming use of their houses belonging to the members of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.1.2004 issued by the Awas Ayukt, U.P. Awas and Vikas Parishad (vide Anncxurc-19 to the petition).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was founded with the object of promoting the cause of the traders doing their business in Vasundhara Housing Complex, Ghaziabad, and to carry out other activities.4. In a resolution of the Society held on 8.2.2004 it was resolved that if there was a litigation with the Society the judgment would bind all the members. The present petition is being preferred on behalf of the ...
Subhash Chandra Yadav Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ277All; (2004)3UPLBEC2926
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2001 by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The father of the appellant was a gardener (Mali) in the service of the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Allahabad. He died-in-harness on 18.1.1998. The appellant is his son who had applied for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules prevalent in the Bank.4. By the order of the Chief General Manager dated 2.6.2001 (copy of which is Anncxure-1 to the Special Appeal) his application was rejected.5. A perusal of the order dated 2.6.2001 shows that the appellant's application was rejected on the ground that his family does not appear to be in indigent circumstances as the family members of the deceased have received Rs. 2.69 lacs towards Provident Fund and Gratuity, apart from Family pension. They also own a house and two family members arc. earning members and on...
Chaitanya NaraIn and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3280
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri. V. K. Singh advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Senior standing counsel on behalf of the Union of India, Sri Bal Mukund on behalf of respondent No. 2, Sri Satish Chaturvedi on behalf of respondent No. 3, Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari and Shri Vishnu Pratap Tiwari on behalf of respondent No. 4, standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Sri A. R. Masoodi on behalf of respondent No. 6.2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 3rd September, 2002, passed in Original Application No. 539 of 2002, along with other connected Original Applications, enclosed as Annexure~9 to the writ petition. The original application, giving rise to the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal under challenge, were filed by the persons who are members of the U. P. State Forest Service eligible for being considered for appointment through promotion to Indian Forest Service U.P. Cadre.3. The recruitment to...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »