Allahabad Court December 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.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. the Cooperative Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2007)5VST78(All)
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are directed against the orders of Tribunal dated 15.09.1097 both relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act respectively.2. A common question of law is involved in the present revisions for consideration of this Court as to whether the price of the bottles charged from customers is liable to tax. in a case where on a return of bottle, some of price of bottle was liable to be refunded.3. The brief facts of the case are that the Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as 'the Dealer') was engaged in the business of Country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. In the assessment order, it is mentioned that in the assessment year 1986-87 as per the letter dated 29.3.1986 of the Commissioner of Excise, U.P., dealer was permitted to charge the price towards bottle in the case of 750 ML bottle at Rs. 2.30, 500 ML bottle at Rs. 2.20 an...
S.R. Cannery Vs. the Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2007)10VST23(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as'Act') are directed against the orders of Tribunal dated 11.09.1998 both relating to the assessment year 1989-90 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act respectively.2. In both the aforesaid revisions, following two common questions have been raised:-(a) Whether on the facts and in; the circumstances of the case, the sales of tinned fresh fruits and green vegetables were liable to tax?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the process of preservation and tinning of fresh fruits and green vegetables could be described as manufacture as defined under Section 2 (e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act?3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the dealer was carrying on the business of Jam, Jellies, Pickles, Tinned Fresh Fruits and Green Vegetables. He submitted that the green vegetables and...
Mishri Lal S/O Shri K. Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through S ... Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(5)AWC4403
B.A. Zaidi, J.1. The 9 petitioners are BSNL employees, who were initially appointed in the year 1982 as Junior Hindi Translators in Department of Tele Communication, Government of India, which subsequently gave origin to BSNL on 1.10.2000 in a Government of India undertaking.2. On 10.7.1995 the petitioners were promoted on local officiating basis as AD (OL) in the office of the General Manager Tele Com. respondent No. 6 and since then they are working as Addl. Directors (OL).3. Their case is that the promotion Rules at the first time, regarding them were framed by respondent No. 3. These Rules thereinafter referred to Old Rules) are Annexure - 2 on the record. Sub (iv) of Rule 10 of the Rules provided interalia, that these Rules shall remain in force for three years, and promotions will accordingly be governed their under. It will appear, column 12 of these Rules, provided the promotion on fifty percent of the vacant posts of AD(OL) by seniority-cum-fitness from Senior Hindi Translator...
Savitri Devi Wife of Sri Ram Gyani Vs. the Commissioner, Azamgarh Divi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC29
Vineet Saran, J.1. Petitioner was granted a license in the year 1996 to run a fair price shop. By an order dated 2.11.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mau, Respondent No. 2, the license of the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, on 10.1.2002, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order cancelling the license of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said , the petitioner filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, Respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 19.3.2002. Challenging the orders dated 10.1.2002 and 19.3.2002 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat and Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 even in the revised list. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchange...
Achhaibar Son of Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC397
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.1.1976 and 29.1.1977 passed by Settlement Officer consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.2. At the start of Consolidation proceedings the dispute between the parties was with regard to khata No. 2,3,4,5, 84, 86 and 90. One Smt. Phulpatia filed an objection in respect of khatas claiming to be the daughter and heir of Mst. Sukhia. Another objection was filed by respondent No. 3 Shyam Narain on behalf of his minor son Lallan alias Lal Bahadur in respect of aforesaid khatas claiming rights as son and sole heir of Mst. Sukhia. The petitioners also filed three objections on the ground that Bipat, husband of Smt. Sukhia belonged to their family. After death of Bipat Mst. Sukhia remarried with respondent No. 3, Shyam Narain and as such ceased to have any interest in the khatas. Her name was wrongly recorded in the reven...
Rajeev Kumar Son of Lakshman Singh, Ex-village Pradhan Gram Sabha and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC34
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:-1. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/Bajaj Groups not to install and run their Mill in village Nekofal @ Bilai, Pargana Dara Nagar, Tehsil Sadar, District Bijnor.2. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with all environmental needs as required under law before installing Mills.3. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/Bajaj Groups to immediate comply with agreement said to be executed by D.G.M. (Cane) namely Surya Prakash Ojha dated 15.04.2005 (Annex.2).2. The aforesaid reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners submitting that they are public spirited persons representing the interest of the poor, downtrodden villagers who have been cheated by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 in purchasing their land in contravention of t...
Abhilakh Singh and Sripal Singh Sons Mulayam Singh (In Jail) Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1419
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal at the instance of two brothers, Abhilakh and Sripal Singh sons of Mulayam Singh is directed against the judgment and order-dated 31.7.1981 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 63 of 1980, whereby he convicted both brothers under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case-giving rise to this appeal were as under: -Abhilakh and Sripal Singh are sons of Mulayam Singh, Arjun Singh, the deceased was brother of Subedar Singh and all of them resided in village Jatpura Police Station Puranpur, Pilibhit. Some altercation had taken place between Arjun Singh on the one hand and appellants on the other in the month of April 1979 in the Khalihan. The villagers intervened and solved the dispute. However, the appellants were annoyed and bore grudge. 3. On 24.9.1979, at about 7.30 a...
Prem Kumar Singh Son of Sri Ram Dhani Singh and ors. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2727
S.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. All the above Writ Petitions listed in Bunch, as the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have requested, heard and decided together since they raise common issues on somewhat similar facts. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the above petitions listed in bunch. Facts are referred from the record of the leading Writ Petition No. 420 of 2004.2. Circular dated 27th January, 2004/Annexure 1 to the said Writ Petition is common which is under challenge. This Circular was, at it shows, was initially applicable up to 31.3.1997 but with an option to further extension. There is nothing on record to show that the scheme under said Circular was, if at all, extended further.3. We find that 'additional tax' was imposed under U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 read with U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1998 (as amended by U.P. Act No. 21 of 2004). Tax on 'Motor Vehicles' is imposed under Section 4 of the Act, 1997 and 'additional tax' is impose...
Kanodia and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)442; [2006]281ITR255(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called as 'the Act') :1. Whether, even after finding that the production could not come out in a final shape, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the mill had started manufacturing goods during the year under reference within the meaning of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the initial year in the case of the assessee for getting, benefit under Section 80J was the assessment year 1971-72 is legally sustainable ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80J for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1976-77.3. M/s. Kanodia and Sons, Kanpur, the assessee, claimed relief under Section 80J of the Act. The Income-tax Of...
HafizuddIn Adult Son of Sri MajeeduddIn Vs. Additional District Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR877]; (2006)IIILLJ276All
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 513 of 1997.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Mobile Booking Clerk with effect from 15.1.1981 and continued to the said post till 31.3.1987. The services were terminated from 1.4.1987. The petitioner moved an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and vide its judgment and order dated 22.2,1989 allowed the petition and quashed the order of termination. On the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal the petitioner was reinstated and join his duties on 22.11.1989 but he was not being paid regular pay scale according to the pay scale, which becomes entitled as regular employee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 2 the petitioner filed a reference application under Section 15 Sub-clause 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A case was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »