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.
Balwant Singh Vs. Parav Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC519
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court on 27th August, 2004 when after hearing Counsel for the parties, this Court passed the order directing the writ petition to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later and the petitioner was granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation till 31st December, 2004. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.2. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 2nd December, 2002, passed by the Revisional Court, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner tenant, against the decree dated 8th December, 1999, passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for ejectment, and arrears of rent filed by the respondent-landlord, against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has sub let the shop, in dispute.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant relying u...
Cit, Meerut Vs. Panniji Sugar and General Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN153(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs 20,55,827 was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as income ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1978-79. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent- assessee derives income from manufacture and sale of sugar. During the assessment years in question it realized excess levy price from the customers under the interim orders passed by this court. The assessee was required to give security in the form of fixed deposits. The Income Tax Officer treated this excess price as trading receipts. In the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The Tribunal has upheld the deletion of the amount from the tr...
Krishna Chandra Vishnoi and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1764
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Kapil Dev and Sri S.N. Shukla, the learned counsel for the State.2. The petitioner no. 1, a correspondent of M/s Filmco Photonews,having its registered office at 109/246, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur and petitioner no.2, a Cameraman, are representative of the said news agency which isrecognised by the Government of India as well as State of U.P. The aforesaidnews agency carries out the business of covering news to be published innewspapers as well as for telecast through electronic media includingDoordarshan and other news channels. M/s Filmco Photonews, of which the petitioners are representatives asCorrespondent and Cameraman, is registered with the Registrar ofNewspapers, Government of India w.e.f. 23.9.88 and the petitionerss arerecognized as representatives of the said news agency by the PressRecognition Committee since 1989 under the U.P. Press Representative Recognition Rules, 1978. The petitioners were also issued Press Cards andwere g...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: [2004]270ITR576(All)
ORDEROrder passed under section 144BCatch Note:In view of amendment of clauses (a) and (c) of Explanation to section 263, with effect from 1-6-1988 the CIT could revise an assessment order passed under section 144B on or before 1-6-1988. Further, that part of the order which was not subject matter of appeal could also be revised.Ratio:Order under section 144B could be revised, which was passed on or before 1-6-1988. Further that part of the order which was not subject matter of appeal could also be revised as the same was not merged in order passed by CIT(A).Case Law Analysis:Followed : CIT v. Shm Arbuda Mills Ltd. (19981231 ITR 50 (SC); CIT v. Jaykumar B. Patil (1999) 236 ITR 469 (SC); CIT v. Mefisana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 645 (Guj); CIT v. Span International (2004) 270 ITR 538 (All), T. N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 82 (SC), Decision:In revenue's favour.4Assessment Year:1976-77Cases Referred:CIT v. Camco Colour Co. (2...
Karya Samiti Carmichael Library Association and anr. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All51; 2005(2)AWC1165; (2004)3UPLBEC2603
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Head Sri A.P. Sahi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gajendra Pratap appearing for the respondent No. 3 and the learend Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties this writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and a writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning in any manner whatsoever.3. Brief facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are : Carmichael Library Association, Varanasi is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 registered in the year 1889. Bye-laws of the registered Soceity has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the bye-laws a Karya Samiti is elected every three year for managing the General Ad...
Surender Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC76
Amar Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.2. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 364A of 2000, State v. Surender Yadav, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Vth, Gorakhpur.3. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for dowry by the husband of the deceased Smt. Ramdani, namely another Surendra Yadav (not the applicant) son of Ram Harakh Yadav and Saudha Devi, mother-in-law, the wife of Ram Harakh Yadav who were residents of village Gajai Kol, P.S. Chhangaha, Gorakhpur.4. The applicant Surender Yadav, S/o Indrasen Yadav is shown as a resident of another village, Rajdhani. The only allegations against the applicant, which appear at the foot of the F.I.R. were that there was some suspicion of the applicant also being involved in this incident, because he used to tell S...
Dr. Nanda Agrawal Vs. Matri Mandir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All12; 2005(1)AWC948
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This revision by defendant Under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court rejected the application for extension of time in filing written statement on the ground that in view of the amended proviso of Order VIII Rule 1 no extension can be granted. Since more than 90 days have already expired after service of summons on the defendants , thus defendant is deprived from filing written statement. In terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of C. P. C, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is amended by amending Act 1999.2. By the amendment, the following provision is added to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure :-'Order VII, Rule 1. Written Statement - The defendant shall within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence.Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall b...
Ramesh Chandra Maurya and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC3009
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of Rule 5 of the UP. Rural Engineering (Group-B) Services 1st Amendment Rules, 1999 as notified on 28.1.2000, on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners have prayed that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion on the post of the Assistant Engineer ignoring the aforesaid Rule 5.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in this petition.4. The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineer in 1995, as stated in Para 3 of the writ petition. They have obtained degree of A.M.I.E. vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition.5. In Paras 6 to 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that earlier recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer wag made in accordance with certain Government Orders (Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ pe...
QamruddIn Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC435
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.7.2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence it is not necessary for us to repeat the same except where necessary.3. The appellant is a Shiekh and he claims to be O.B.C. The post of Pradhan in question was reserved for O.B.C. and hence obviously if the appellant is not an O.B.C. he is not eligible for the said post. The question is whether the appellant is an O.B.C.4. The learned single Judge in a well considered judgment has noted that 'Sheikh' does not denote a Muslim caste. It is a title of respect and it is not a title for any particular caste. He relied on a decision of this Court in Shamiuddin v. Addl. District Judge (I) Mathura and Ors., 1998 (1) AWC 536 : 1998 (98) RD 109. We have carefully...
Ashok Vidyarthi Vs. Srilekha Vidyarthi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1278
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the same was dismissed on 26th August, 2004 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-respondents are of springs of two wives of late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi. Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi, who was subsequently substituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, filed suit No. 37 of 1969 under Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the allegation that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, namely Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi and Mrs. Savitri Vidyarthi, both are the wives of late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, who died on 14th March, 1955. The defendant No. 2, petitioner in the present writ petition, is the son of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »