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.
Bharat Singh Alias Baboo Son of Late Shri Matadeen Vs. D.D.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2151
S.K. Singh, J.1. Challenge in this petition is concurrent judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This petition is delayed by one year and 190 days vide report of the Stamp Reporter.2. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at admission stage.3. Submission is that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is illegal and fraudulent as opposite parties got petitioners share reduced and the compromise was got entered illegally and in fact petitioner was not party in the proceeding and thus the compromise order being illegal was liable to be set aside but the appellate authority and the revisional court has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and revision as barred by time. It is further submitted that in respect to various averments as made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner there is no specific denial by the opposite party in the affidavit and, therefore, that is to be treated as ...
Ex-naik Upendra Kumar Tomar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC797
Shishir Kumar, J.By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of discharge, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and rejecting the statutory complaint of the petitioner, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army on 7.12.1999 and after completion of the training he was inducted as soldier. The petitioner had completed 12 years of service in the year 1991 and was discharged under Army Rule 13 (3) Item III (IV). It has been stated that the action of the respondents being not in accordance with law as there was no occasion to discharge the petitioner under the aforesaid rule without holding a Court martial or even summary disposal. It has been stated that a show cause notice was given to ...
Sardar Khan Son of Sri Zikar Mohammad Khan Vs. the Van Sanrakshak/Kshe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2843
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 7.7.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 and 5.10.2000 passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has prayed for:-(i) quashing of the order dated 7.7.20001, annexure 9 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the pettiioner against the order dated 5.10.2000;(ii) quashing of; the order dated 5.10.2000, annexure 7 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence under the provisions of U.P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills, 1978;(iii) direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant licence to the petitioner as per provision contained in proviso to Rule 5 of the RulesORissuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of fresh licence under the Rules without taking into consideration ...
Charan Singh S/O Shri Sagwa Singh, Vs. Modi Rubber Limited,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR908]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the award in Adjudication Case Nos. 170/85, 172/85, 174/85 and 244/85 passed by the Labour Court in leading Adjudication Case No. 172/85 (Charan Singh and Ors. v. Modi Rubber Ltd.).3. By the impugned award the Labour Court has answered the reference against the workmen and has held that the action of the employers in terminating the services of the petitioners from the posts of drivers, as is given in the reference was according to the rules, legal and justified and they are not entitled to any relief or benefit.3. M/s Modi Rubber Ltd., Modinagar, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 1) has its factory' at Modipuram, Meerut which is engaged in the manufacture of tyres for trucks, trolleys, cars, scooters etc. At the relevant time it employed more than 3000 workmen in its factory at Modipuram.4. The petitioners were drivers. It is alleged that they were not pa...
Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Through Its Distributor and Constituted At ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2097
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This petition was heard on 4.10.2004, 5.11.2004, 20.12.2004and on 21.12.2004. A mention was made by Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate that Sri Prabhat Agarwal, counsel for the respondents has instructed him to inform the court that he cannot come to the court as he has met with an accident and that he has no instructions in the case. The case may be decided on the basis of his arguments advanced earlier.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis. The petitioner-firm was established in or near about 1932. Since then it has been using a trademark up upon the labels on its biris, comprising of a picture of 'Lord Ganesh'; the name and the expression 'Manglore Ganesh Beedi' and the numerical 5013. The trade mark of the petitioner has been registered under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'TMM Act') with the following particu...
Bhashendra S/O Munshi Lal (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2757
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by Bhashendra son of Munshi Lal resident of village Baroli-Fateh Khan Police Station Madrak, Aligarh against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2003 passed by Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 34 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death.2. The brief facts of the case, mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by Chandra Bhan, are that he married his sister Meera Devi about six years back to Bhashendra. His sister had a son Shiv Shankar aged about 5 years. He was occasionally ill and on the ground of his illness Bhashendra, his mother, father Munshi Lal and sister-in-law Manjoo, used to demand money and they use to assault her also and she was also turned out from the house on the ground for bringing Rs. 20,000/- otherwise they would not keep her. It is further stated that they had given a plot of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5000/- cash. But despite this there was a demand...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Raja Y.D. Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)271
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (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 correct in law in holding that provisions of Section 17(2) of the WT Act did not apply in assessee's case as initiation of proceedings was held to be 'incidental only' and not in consequence of a finding or direction as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the WT Act, 1957 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of Section 17(2) of the WT Act do not cover a determination of wealth in respect of an year other than the assessment year under enquiry or the liability of a person who was not a party to reassessment proceedings because action under Section 17(2) initiated in the case of assessee was in consequence of a finding g...
Cwt Vs. Raja Y.D. Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(All)271
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.The ITAT, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (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 correct in law in holding that provisions of section 17(2) of the Wealth Tax Act did not apply in assessee's case as initiation of proceedings was held to be incidental only and not in consequence of a finding or direction as required under sub-section(2) of section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of section 17(2) of the Wealth Tax Act do not cover a determination of wealth in respect of an year other than the assessment year under enquiry or the liability of a person who was not a party to reassessment proceedings because action under section 17(2) initiated in the case of assessee was in conseq...
Wazir Chand and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: [2007]290ITR626(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this court:RA No. 118/Del/1988 (filed by the assessee)(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that weighted deduction was not admissible with reference to the salaries of the directors and the managing director since they had no part to play in terms of Rule 6AA(c) and also that they were relatable to Section 35B(1)(b)(iii) which was not operative for the assessment year in question, having been omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, and whether the said expenditure was allowable under Section 35B(1)(b)(i) ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that weighted deduction was also not admissible with reference to stationery, printing and postage expenses on th...
Prabhat Talkies at Chakiya and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1315
ORDERRajes Kumar, J. 1. The present petition is being filed challenging the order of State Government dated 25.5.2002 by which, a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards penalty levied had been confirmed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were running permanent cinema theatre in the name of Prabhat Talkies at Chakiya, district Chandauli and have been granted licence by the District Magistrate, Chandauli under the provisions of U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). On 11.6.2001, the cinema hall of the petitioners were inspected by the Entertainment Tax Inspector, in which, it was found at 1.40 p.m. that Form-B was not prepared and the same was not found in account of talkies. Consequent to the inspection, an order was passed on 16.2.2001 by the District Magistrate, in which, it was said that by not preparing Form-B, provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act has been violated which was punishable crime under Section 30 of the Act. It has a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »