Allahabad Court January 2005 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.
Mewa Lal and anr. Vs. A.D.J. Court No. 5 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC563; 2005(1)AWC932
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the tenants-petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.11.2002, passed by respondent No. 1 in S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 1998, Thakur Ram Lakshman Janki Mandir v. Mewa Lal and Anr., (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the revision was allowed and the decree passed by J.S.C.C. on 28.3.1998 was reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.2. Heard Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned standing counsel and with the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Fatehpur (J.S.C.C.) for recovery of arrears of rent due from August, 1969 to October, 1981 and for eviction of the tenants from the shop in dispute. It was alleged in the pl...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Bareilly Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1140; 2005(2)ESC1062
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the respondent-Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On 1.5.2003, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority levelling two charges against him which related to some incidents on 5.7.1999 and 7/9.3.2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 22.8.2003, which was forwarded to the petitioner on 11.9.2003 for his comments, which were given by him on 26.9.2003. On 10.11.2003, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why, on the basis of the findings of the enquiry report, he should not be dismissed from the services of the Bank. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 25.11.2003. By the impugned' Order dated 12.1.2004, the disciplinary authority, accepting the report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, passed an Order dismissing him from...
Smt. Ramzano Begum Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All169; 2005(2)AWC1143
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed against the judgment and Order dated 1.6.1995 passed by Sri S.P. Agarwal, Chairman, of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow in Appeals No. 73, 74, 75 and 76 of 1994, Smt. Pratima Kumari Gupta, Smt. Manorama Devi Shukla, Smt. Ramzana Begum and Om Prakash Jain v. Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, whereby while deciding the aforesaid appeals together by a common judgment and Order passed therein learned Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid appeals. The aforesaid appeals were preferred against the Order dated 11,2.1994 passed by The Regional Transfer Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as R.T.A.), thereby the application for grant of regular stage carriage permit of petitioners on Phaphund-Ghatiaghat route (hereinafter referred as route) has been rejected.2. The facts and question in controversy involved in all the three writ petitions are identical ; therefore, the same are decided together by a common ...
Mahesh Chand Vs. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Prescribed Authority Un ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC558
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the tenant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.2.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 (Prescribed Authority) (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the authority rejected the application of the tenant for recalling the witnesses who had filed their affidavits in support of the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. In brief, the petitioner's allegations are that he is tenant of the shop in question and respondent No. 2 is landlord. The landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he required the aforesaid shop to establish business of his sons Naveen Kumar and Ashok Kumar who wanted to start b...
Janta Udyog Mandal Vidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1745; 2005(2)ESC849
S.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioner is a recognised school. It was found to be in authorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha land comprised in Plot No. 1348 area .963 hectares. Proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the form of Case No. 147 of 2003-2004, Gaon Sabha v. Ram Kumar alias Led Singh were initiated. Ram Kumar alias Lal Singh is Manager of Committee of Management of the petitioner school. In the notice 49-Ka it was mentioned that on the land in dispute school had been established since 2002 (1409 Fasli). Manager of the petitioner i.e. Ram Kumar filed objection stating therein that school was established on the land in dispute in the year 1964 and it was recognised in the year 1973-74. Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector (First Class), Kanpur Nagar through Order dated 27.8.2004 passed Order of ejectment and recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 161 per year. In the Order no specific finding was given regarding the period of unauthorised occupation. The argument of ...
Harpal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1530
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel.2. Prayer in this petition is for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the disputed land and pond except in accordance with law. There is further prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute By moving amendment application prayer for quashing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.4.2001, has been made and another prayer has also been added that the Deputy Director of Consolidation be directed to dispose of the pending revision against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.4.2001 within a reasonable time.3. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be summarised.4. Dispute is in respect to plot Nos. 843 and 837 situated in village Palri Pargana Shika...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Jwala Prasad Surajbhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]141STC79(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These four revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 24, 1996 for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.2. Following question has been raised in the present revisions :'Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that arkil seeds and born villa vegetable seeds are exempt vide Notification No. 7038, dated January 31, 1985, despite the fact that the aforesaid commodity falls under the category of 'matar' and is liable to be taxed accordingly ?'3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the arkil seeds and born villa are commonly known as pichka matar and liable to be taxed as matar and is not exempted as vegetable seeds. He submitted that arkil seed and born villa are not vegetable seed. Learned counsel for the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Construction Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR368(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act when the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on account of his failure to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271B which attracted in the assessee's case due to contravention of the provisions of Section 44AB 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1986-87. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent/assessee is a firm engaged in the execution of contract work. It was required to obtain audit report in terms of Section 44AB of the Act by June 30, 1986. The respondent did not obtain the report and the same was encl...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kishore Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)484
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessment for the asst. yr. 1980-81 was not erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ?2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of subsidy is not deductible for arriving at the cost of machinery and plant ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1980-81.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee filed a return of income showing net loss of Rs. 48,530 for the assessment year in question. The assessment was completed on a net income of Rs. 1,721. For arriving at this figure the ITO has allowed the brought forward of investment allow...
Cit Vs. S. Kamaljeet Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN18(All)
ORDER1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 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 the ITAT is correct in law and on facts in reversing the order of the learned AAC setting aside the assessment after issuing a notice of enhancement under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in holding that the power of enhancement has not been properly exercised by the learned AAC in restoring the matter back to the Income-tax Officer after issuing a notice of enhancement for undertaking fresh investigation on a subject in respect of which the assessee had already discharged his onus?'2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee is one of the coparceners of the family of Sardar Khazan Singh, HUF. The HUF is engaged in mon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »