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.
Cit Vs. Gordhan Das Mahender Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN426(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest paid to Shyam Lal (HUF) of Rs. 16,565 and to Mahender Kumar (HUF) of Respondent Rs. 20,0762. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) regarding disallowance under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest paid to Shyam Lal (P) Trust of respondent Rs. 2,466 and to Mahender Kumar (P) Trust of respondent Rs. 2,474?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The respondent No. ...
Committee of Management, Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3652; (2004)3UPLBEC2839
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri P. N. Saxena, Advocate, assisted by Sri I. S. Tomar, and Sri J. P. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate and Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. ,2. These two writ petitions are directed against the same order passed by the Coordinator B.Ed Entrance Cell, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 17th June, 2004 and dated 5.7.2004, whereby the University has cancelled the admission of the petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and has recommended the names of four new candidates for admission in B.Ed Course of 2004.3. First writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay, Shambhoopur Gahji, Azamgarh through its Manager Sri Faujdar Singh. While second writ petition has been filed by four students, whose admissions have been cancelled under the aforesaid order.4. The relevant fact giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:Maa Sha...
Zameel Ahmad Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC338; (2005)1UPLBEC22
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot and Sri S.K. Pandey for the petitioner, and Sri M. M. Sahai for U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.2. The U.P.State Road Transport Corporation established and incorporated under the U.P.Road Transport Corporation Act, is wholly owned and controlled by the State Government and is an instrumentality of the State. It falls within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The service conditions of the employees of the Corporation arc regulated by the U.P.Road Transport Corporation (Employees other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981.3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Corporation in the year 1990. After serving for a long period he fell ill and proceeded on medical leave. On medical examination he was found to be suffering from 'Carcinoma Urinary Bladder', and could not attend duties for a long period of-time. The Medical Board chaired by Divisional Medical Board/Additional Director, Medical, Heal...
Syed Ashraf Ali and ors. Vs. Onkar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC546
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.2. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought against the order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge/JSCC Aligarh in Suit No. 653 of 1995 Syed Asharaf Ali and Ors. v. Onkar Singh and Ors. whereby application 202-C moved on behalf of the plaintiff for recalling the defence witnesses who could not be properly cross-examined on 31.1.2004. It has been contended that the plaintiff witnesses who filed affidavit were declared hostile and so an application was moved on his behalf for permitting other witnesses to be examined but that application was rejected by the Court in September, 2003. As against that orders, civil revision was also preferred. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff was busy in making argument in the aforesaid revision but in the meantime, suit No. 653 of 1995 was taken up by the trial Court for the examination of th...
Om Prakash Mishra Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC414
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court when after hearing Counsel for the parties, this Court dismissed the writ petition for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.8.2004 passed by the revisional Court and the order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the application filed by the Satish Kumar Srivastava has been allowed releasing the house in question in favour of Satish Kumar Srivastava. Thereafter petitioner, Om Prakash Mishra filed an application dated 26.6.2004 for recall of the order dated 7.6.2004 on the ground that the said order was passed without hearing Om Prakash Mishra which was rejected vide order dated 7.7.2004. On rejection of the application for recall of the order dated 7.6.2004. Om Prakash Mishra, writ petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court which was also dismissed on 21.8....
Nagar Panchayat Through Its Executive Officer Vs. the Presiding Office ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR65]
R.B. Misra, J. Heard Sri R.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel.1. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the award dated 30.11.1992 and order dated 18.1.1994 for recovery of dues.2. From the pleadings and perusal of records it appears respondent No. 2 was deployed as Clerk on 30.7.1988 on daily wages on the remuneration of Rs.20 per day in Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, district Moradabad, however, while making such deployment proper procedure prescribed for recruitment to the Class-III post was not followed but after his continuance for some years when the work and conduct of respondent No. 2 was found not satisfactory he was involved in financial irregularities e.g., making irregularities in realizing house tax without any receipt not mentioning any date in the counter foil of the receipt, not putting his signature on the counter foil receipt and keeping for a long time the tax reali...
Cit Vs. Raghubir Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN364(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred 'he following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion of this Court:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that no annual charge was created by the assessee voluntarily on the property and, therefore, the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 27,984 from the property income could not be disallowed under the provisions of section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The respondent, who is an individual derives income from business, plying of bus and from property. During the assessment year 1979-80, he claimed deduction of Rs. 27,984 towards interest paid to Smt. Dayawati, Smt. Bina Singhal and Vipin Kumar in respect of the amount borrowed for the property in question. The Income Tax Officer has disallowed the amount on the ground that it was ...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Murari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC161
Amar Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.List has been revised. Counsel for the opposite party is absent.In this case, it appears that the applicant got an ex parte order of divorce from his wife on 14.8.1986. The decree was prepared on 3.9.1986. It appears that on 24.2.1988 he contracted a second marriage with Smt. Munni Devi. On 3.11.1989 a complaint was filed against the applicant and others on he basis of which only the applicant was summoned under Section 494,1.P.C. by the order dated 30.5.1990. It appears that on 18.9.1990, the first wife Sandhya daughter of the complainant Murari Lal was successful in getting the ex parte decree of divorce set aside. The question is whether the complaint against the applicant under Section 494,1.P.C. could proceed.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of Krishna Gopal Divedi v. Prabha Divedi, reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 473, wherein it has been squar...
Veekay Connectors (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. National Small Industries Corp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All57
1. Heard Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior counsel and Shri Yeshwant Verma for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 25-3-2004 (Annexure9 to the petition) and 30-6-2004 (Annexure-14 to the petition).3. Since we are deciding the case on a purely legal point in our opinion it is not necessary for us to call for counter affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents.4. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and is primarily engaged in the manufacture of Fibre Optic Communication Accessories.5. On 13-3-2002 the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called B.S.N.L.) floated a global tender for the supply of Fibre Distribution Management System (FDMS). True copy of the tender notice dated 13-3-2002 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition....
thekedar Association, Prantiya Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag and ors. Vs. E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC245
ORDERM. Katju, A.C.J. and S. Ambwani, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has not challenged the grant of any specific contract. His only prayer is that in future the contract should not be granted illegally without proper advertisement, etc.3. In our opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable as framed. The petitioner can challenge a specific contract on the ground of illegality and he cannot claim a general writ that in future no illegal contract should be granted. If and when any contract is granted illegally, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same.4. The writ petition is dismissed, as premature....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »