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.
Swarna Kanti Dixit (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC3123
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard R.B. Trivedi of petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma for respondent No. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appears of State respondents.2. Brief facts, giving is to this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer/Typist, on 7.5.1973, on temporary basis be Regional Food Controller, Kanpur. By a subsequent order dated 26.7.1973 the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur appointed her on temporary basis on a leave vacancy of Sri M. C. Nigam, Stenographer, who had gone on 35 days earned leave. By a third order dated 15.9.1973, the Regional Food Controller allowed her to continue her as Sri M.C. Nigam had not retained back after availing the leave. By a fourth order dated 17.5.1975, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Clerk to the post of Stenographer and that on 12.7.1975 the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Clerk 111 grade. The petitioner was again promoted as Stenographer by the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur on 2.2.1977.3. The pe...
Bharat Singh (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC957
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Mehrotra appearing for the respondents.2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.10.1976, 5.6.1978 and 16.9.1980 passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.3. The dispute relates to khata No. 44 situate in village Sherpur Khanajad Pur, District Saharanpur. In the basic year, the said khata was recorded in the name of respondent No. 4 Smt. Kalawati. During partal, possession of one Phullu Singh son of Sri Atma Ram was recorded over the said khata. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that Atma Ram had entered into an agreement to sell the land in his favour ...
Madan Industries Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ30All
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Writ Petition No. 5772 of 1980 will be the leading case as learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the basis of the facts stated in the said writ petition.2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut dated June 16, 1989 whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut allowed the application filed by the workman for setting aside ex parte proceedings as per order dated April 1, 1980 and for restoration of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has no power to recall the order to proceed ex parte as there is no provision which confers such jurisdiction on the Industrial Tribunal.3. The question regarding power of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in setting aside ex parte order have been dealt with by Apex Court in the case Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Gov...
Dr. Smt. Madhuri Saxena Vs. Vth Addl. D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1187
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questions the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge exercising powers of revision under the provision of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :'That the petitioner, defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 approached the revisional court. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners and landlords of the accommodation in dispute which has been let out to the defendant-petitioner as one of the conditions of the contract of employment because the defendant was employed in the college run and managed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 and also that the Act No. XIII of 1972 is not applicable. The petitioner-defendant ...
Shyam Lal Kushwaha and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1671; 2005(1)ESC337
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The only prayer of the petitioners in this petition is that the election of Vice President of Municipal Board, Baruwasagar, Jhansi be held at the premises of the Municipal building, Baruwasagar, Jhansi and not in any other place.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on Section 54-A(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 which states :'Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 54, the meeting for the election of the Vice-President shall be held at the office of the Municipality and on the date and time appointed by the District Magistrate. The notice of the meeting and the date and time appointed therefor shall be sent to every member of the Municipality at his place of residence seven clear days before the date fixed for the meeting. A copy of such notice shall also be published in such manner as the District Magistrate may direct, and upon such publication, every member shall be deemed to have recei...
Dr. Naim UddIn Alias Naim Ahmad Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2240
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Etah in Misc. Case No. 198 of 2004 whereby the District Judge, has refused to entertain the revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against an order passed by Munsif under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad and Ors., 2002 (5) AWC 4094 : 2003 (38) ACJ 105, wherein learned single Judge of this Court has held that no revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against an order passed under Section 30 of the Act.2. In this view of the matter, since no revision lies as held by this Court in the decision of Anwar Ali, 2002 (5) AWC 4094 : 2003 (38) ACJ 105 (supra), this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision of this Court in St. Jones School v. Special Judge, E.C. Act and Anr., 1998 (3) AWC 1995 (LB) ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A.P. Arun Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2005]275ITR478(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the opinion to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not applicable in the present case ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. Smt. Anaro Devi died on January 1, 1981 and her son, Arun Kumar, is the accountable person. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty invoked the provisions of Section 34(1)(c) by adding the lineal descendant's shares for the purposes of determining the rate of estate duty. He also applied the provisions of Section 32 of the Act.4. In appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty held that in the case of a female, Section 34(1)(c) was not applicable because a female could not be a coparcen...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kitabullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC236
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 26th May, 1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, thereby awarding a sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- by way of compensation to the heirs of deceased Farhad.2. It appears that a claim petition was filed with the allegations that on 12th December, 1996 deceased Farhad was travelling in second class from Basati to Bombay VT and when the train reached near Orai, due to an accidental fall, Farhad fell down and suffered injuries and when he was taken to hospital he died due to those injuries.3. From the side of the Railways the factum of death due to injuries is not denied, but has been pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The factum of accident and liability of the railways has also been denied.4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed as many as four issues in the case and after recording evidence and on appraisal thereof came to the conclusion that ...
Marble Men Vs. Cit and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)55; [2005]142TAXMAN360(All)
By The CourtIn the present writ petition, notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the assessment year 1997-98 has been challenged.2. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the business of handicraft items and marble goods in the city of Agra. It caters to the need of foreign tourists, who visit the city. The goods are sold against foreign exchange. While taking the goods out of the country, it requires customs clearance at the airport, The petitioner claimed benefit of special deduction under section 80HHC of the Act in respect of the turnover and profit of counter sales made against convertible foreign exchange to the foreign tourists. The assessing authority in the original assessment order accepted the claim and granted deduction. However, he issued notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to withdraw the deduction granted to the petitioner under section 80HHC of the Act.3. We have heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Arun Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN645(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act for opinion to this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of' the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that section 34(1)(c) of' the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was not applicable in the present case ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:Smt. Anaro Devi died on 1-1-1981 and her son Arun Kumar is the accountable person. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty invoked the provisions of section 34(1)(c) by adding the lineal descendant's shares for the purposes of determining the rate of estate duty. He also applied the provisions of section 32 of the Act.3. In appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty held that in the case of female, section 34(1)(c) was not applicable because female could not be a co-parcener. He, therefore, dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »