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.
Balbhadra Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC41
S.U. Khan, J.1. First writ petition by three persons is directed against order dated 15.7.2002 passed by R.C. and E.O./City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 15 of 2002 under Section 16 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Manoj Kumar Singh v. Amar Singh. The said order is only four line order which says that inspite of notice occupier has not deliberately appeared therefore, on the application of landlady, Urmila Devi agarwal, vacancy is declared ex parts. Let the vacancy be published and the file be placed on '2.8.2002'.2. Even if no one appears vacancy cannot be declared without recording finding existence of facts, which give rise to vacancy. From the impugned order no one can gather as to under which clause of Section 12 vacancies has been declared.3. Accordingly, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for landlady respondent No. 1, I allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 15.7.2002 and direct R.C. and E.O, to decide the question of v...
Suraj Bali Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2726
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner through his attorney Sri Hari Narain Dubey, praying inter alia to command the opposite parties to declare the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the present rate prevailing in the area in question and has further prayed for 12% additional compensation under Section 21(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from 31.3.1982, i.e., the date when the possession of the land in question was taken over by the opposite parties. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the opposite parties be directed to pay entire amount of damages, compensation including the statutory interest and other admissible amount. In the event award is not declared, the land in question may be restituted in favour of the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner was illegally acquired by the State Government and the notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (he...
Nelco (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)257; [2005]142TAXMAN380(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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the return of income filed by the assessee on 13-3-1980 under section 139(4) could not be revised under section 139(5) by filing another return on 4-1-1982?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80 the applicant had filed the return of income of Rs. 99,374 on 8-3-1980, which was under the provisions of section 139(4) of the Act. Subsequently on 4-1-1982 it filed a return of income of Rs. 6,830 on the ground that the deduction under section 35B of the Act had not been adequately claimed in the original return. The Income Tax Officer ignored the revised return as according to him the return originally filed on 13-3-1980 was not a return filed under sub-se...
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC72(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions Under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax-Act,-1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated April 11, 1994 relating to the assessment year 1988-89. Revision No. 620 of 1994 relates to the penalty Under Section 8-D(6) of the Act and Revision No. 621 of 1994 relates to the payment of interest Under Section 8-D(7) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant entered into contract with National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NTPC') for the construction 220 KVA sub-station at Mandaula, Ghaziabad, U.P. Offer was given on December 28, 1988, which was accepted on January 12, 1989. It appears that towards advance a sum of Rs. 8 crores was paid on February 21, 1989 and Rs. 4 crores was paid on March 31, 1989 by the applicant to NTPC.Admittedly, work had not been started and the goods had not been transferred to the applicant during the year under consideration. Assessment wa...
U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh Through Its Allahabad Zila Mantri Vs. St ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR804]
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction the respondents to treat the primary Section attached to Mahila Seva Sadan Inter College, Bairaha, Allahabad in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the teachers and other staff members of the primary Section of the-aforesaid college may also be paid salary under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Payment of Salaries Act, 1991).3. The facts in brief are that Mahila Seva Sadan Inter College, Bairaha, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the institution) is a recognized and aided institution but, however, the primary Section of the said institution is not included in the grant-in-aid list although it is duly recognized by the State Go...
Constable Kamla Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2720
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1987. By an order dated 12-12-1997 the petitioner was suspended pending contemplated enquiry. The reason for suspending the petitioner was that he was found asleep during duty hours and on medical examination it was found that the smell of alcohol was coming' from his mouth. The doctor opined that even though the petitioner had consumed alcohol, he was not intoxicated and that he did not require any medical aid. Subsequently, by an order dated 31-12-1997, the suspension order was revoked and on the next day, i.e., 1-1-1998 his services were terminated by invoking the proviso to Sub-clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was also rejected by an order dated 6-3-1998. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition assailing the...
Niranjan Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC505; (2004)3UPLBEC2845
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The Petitioner No. 1, Niranjan Singh was appointed as a Constable on 11.1.1981 and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Constable on 27.12.1971, while the petitioner Ram Pal Singh of Writ Petition No. 9701 of 2001 was appointed as a Constable in the year 1973. The services of the petitioners were dismissed by a common order dated 17.1.2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, respondent No. 2 exercising the powers under proviso to Sub-clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinfafler referred to as the Rules).2. Since, the controversy involved in both the writ petitions arc identical, hence, both the petitions are being decided together.3. Heard Sri R.S. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing Counsel for the respondents.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the proviso to clause (b) of Sub-rule...
Shine Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(99)ECC605; 2005(179)ELT516(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s. Shine Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, respondent no. 4 to regularize the temporary licence dated 20th November 2000 issued to the petitioner as Custom House Agent. It further seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th September 2002 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, respondent no. 4, filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition and the order dated 31st January 2003 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, respondent No. 3, filed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition.2. Briefly slated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :-The petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of cargo clearance and claims itself to be a member o...
Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)153; [2005]274ITR405(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In IT Ref. No. 325 of 1982, the Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law Under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 17,500 in the total income of the assessee even though the said amount was also assessed in the hands of the two partners, viz., S/Shri Udai Narain and Girish Narain ?'2. The IT Ref. No. 327 of 1982 which is at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law Under Section 256(1) of the Act for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,500 made by the ITO ?'3. Since both these references relate to the partnership firm and one of its partner for the asst. yr. 1977-78, and the questions are interdependen...
Baleshwar Mishra Vs. Jamil Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All49; 2005(2)AWC1163
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 9-3-2004 passed by the District Judge, Deoria, in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2004 and the order dated 5-2-2004 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Misc. Execution Case No. 104 of 2003 and further relief of striking off the Execution Case in 25 of 1985. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under;2. The petitioner's father late Ganga Mishra took a loan of Rs. 1350/- from respondent in the year 1974. As the loan was not repaid, the respondent filed a suit being Suit No. 67 of 1978 in the Court of Judge Small Causes for the recovery of Rs. 1350/against the petitioner's father late Ganga Mishra which was decreed on 25-7-1979. A revision was filed by Ganga Mishra against the said decree dated 25-7-1979 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which was also dismissed on 27- 2-1980. The respondent-decree holder put the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »