Allahabad Court September 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.
Kali Prasad Pandey and ors. Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1771
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 29.5.2004 and 27.2.2004, passed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property so far as it relates to Gata No. 324, Area 2.415 Hectare situate in village Kuerha Keshavpur, Thesil Sadar, District Faizabad and also not to change the nature of the suit property until disposal of the Regular Suit No. 672 of 2003 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad.2. I have heard Shri Prashant Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.C. Mukherjee, Advocate for the opposite party No. 3 the caveator.3. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be owners in possession of the disputed land. They had agreed to ...
Ali Bux Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1783
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 5.3.2003 and 19.7.2004 contained in Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in dispute.2. I have heard Shri Akhlaq Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Asit Chaturvedi for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6.3. The case of the petitioner is that the land on which the disputed shop is constructed belonged to him and he obtained it 50 years ago from the then Zamindar of Takiya Kalan Bharaich on payment of Rs. 20 as nazrana and he was given permission to construct the shop over it and since then he was in possession over the shop in question. His possession was threatened by the opposite parties. Therefore, he filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich and during the p...
Committee of Management, Shri Bhairav Nath Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1786
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision dated 21.7.2004 taken by the Committee headed by the opposite party No. 2 and also the order dated 22.7.2004, passed by the opposite party No. 4 as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue as Committee of Management of Shri Bhairav Nath Uchchatar Madyhyamik Vidyalaya, Mau Gorpur, District Barabanki and also the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution and further for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as Committee of Management.2. I have heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, advocate for the petitioners and Shri G.S.L. Verma, advocate for the opposite party No. 5.3. By the impugned order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure-1) the Joint Director, Educati...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC437; 2006ACJ565
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 111 days. It was in time up to 21.5.2004.2. The judgment was pronounced by the Claims Tribunal on 11.2.2004. Its certified copy was applied for on 25.2.2004. It was ready on 5.3.2004. Certified copy of the order was received on 12.3.2004. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Divisional Manager at the Regional Office, Gorakhpur on 23,3.2004. In para 4 of the affidavit it has been stated that thereafter the matter was referred to the Regional Office. The date of sending the file to the Regional Office has not been disclosed in the affidavit. However, from the averments made in para 4 of the affidavit it is not clear as to when legal cell of the appellant granted approval. Relevant dates are missing in para 4 of the affidavit. In para 5 it has been stated that the file was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant on 25.8.2004. The appeal was barred by time by that time. In spite of that, the present appea...
Cit Vs. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN412(All)
ORDER1. The present Income Tax Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that it raises the following substantial question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned I.T.A.T. was legally correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s decision in holding that mere passing a journal entry mentioning utilization of investment allowance reserve fulfils the requirement of provisions of section 32A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue and Sri S.P. Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.D. Singh on behalf of the respondent-assessee.3. This appeal and other connected appeals relate to the assessment Years 1978-79 to 1986-87. During these assessment years the respondent -assessee claimed and was granted the following amount towards investment allowance:Accounting YearAsstt. YearDeduct...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahavir Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)67; [2005]279ITR381(All)
1. 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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that payment made to Shri Atma Ram Agarwal, advocate and Dr. R.C. Vaish, chartered accountant were not covered by the provision of Section 80VV is vitiated as the Tribunal had failed to take into account that both of them have represented the assessee in income-tax proceedings ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present reference relates to asst. yr. 1977-78. For the assessment year in question, the respondent had claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,615 being legal expenses. While framing the assessment under Section 143(3)/144B of the Act, the ITO disallowed Rs. 5,835 being beyond permissible limit under Section 80VV of the Act. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the CIT deleted addition ...
Cit Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN681(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. The present appeal preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been admitted by this court on the following four substantial questions of law'1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the interest disallowed on loan given by the assessee to its sister concern for non-business purposes?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to allow investment allowance on telephone exchange installed in fertilizer unit and distillery unit which is engaged in manufacture of articles and things listed in Eleventh Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961?3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the ex gratia bonus payments made by the assessee over and above the bonus payable in accordance with the provisions of Bonus Act, 1965 were an allowable deduction?4. Whether on ...
Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Kishori Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC721; (2004)3UPLBEC2818
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been preferred by the Acquiring Body against the judgment and decree dated 22nd May, 1993 passed by the 16th Additional District Judge, Allahabad in LAR No. 291 of 1991.2. The State Government acquired the land of the claimant respondents being plots No. 198 (area 6 Bighas 11 Biswas and 11 Dhoors) and plot No. 200 area 5 Biswas and 5 Dhoors situate in village Deo-Ghat Jhalwa, pergana and tehsil Chail, District Allahabad for the purpose of construction of Deo Ghat Colony. A notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6.2.1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by its award dated 28th March, 1989 determined the market value of the land acquired for the purpose of payment of compensation to the landholders. He adopted belting system and carved out three belts. The land in question' according to the Special Land Acquisition Officer falls in third belt and awarded compensation...
A. and A. Restaurant and Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dwarikajeet Restaurant Pv ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All60; 2005(1)ARBLR526(All); 2005(1)AWC713
Prakash Krishna , J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the objector, against whom an award by the Arbitral Tribunal has been passed.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the parties entered into a registered lease agreement in respect of property No. 7/110-A Sarup Nagar, Kanpur, The said lease agreement is dated 15th February, 1999. It also contains an arbitration clause. The respondent is admittedly the lessor and the present appellant is the lessee of the aforesaid property. The dispute having arisen between the parties It was referred to Arbitral Tribunal of Shri Manish Agrawal. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 4th August, 2000 ordered that-the present appellant shall deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question i.e. 7/110-A to the present respondent and shall also pay the over due rent from January, 2000 up to 3rd August, 2000 amounting to Rs. 56.0...
Phool Chand Singh Vs. Ram Khelawan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC209; 2005(1)AWC187
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is claimant's appeal. It arises out of the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court below by the impugned order dated 24.7.1991, has refused to condone the delay of seven months and eleven days in filing the claim petition.2. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with an application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It was filed on the allegation that on 26.10.1988 the applicant met with an accident at G.T. Road. His right foot was injured and he was hospitalized for treatment till 1.7.1989. After discharge from the hospital the present petition was filed on 2.9.1989. The Tribunal rejected the petition as barred by time on the short ground that the appellant did not file medical certificate in support of application for condonation of delay and, as such, was not prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the claim petition within time. The Tribunal was of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »