Allahabad Court February 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.
Prem Chandra Sharma and Three ors. Vs. Milan Banerji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2001
1. Sri K.D. Nag, learned Counsel for Union of India has informed this Court that the notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 was wrongly accepted in the Office of the Senior Standing Counsel and the same is being returned as Senior Standing Counsel has no authority to receive the copies of notice on behalf of opposite party.2. The inherent essential characteristic to become an Engineer is to be intelligent; to become a Doctor is to be intelligent and diligent both; to become a Defence Officer one has to be brave and one who wants to become a member of Bar, has a responsibility towards the Society at large and towards the administration of justice is not less a person has to inculcate all the above qualities. But now-a-days, the people have adopted short cut methods to come in the limelight and one such method is filing Public Interest Litigation. Of and again, the Hon'ble apex Court and this Court penned down in strongly worded sentences that member of the Bar while filing Public Inte...
Devesh Singh, Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2663
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 21.12.2004.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel have been heard.3. Facts in brief, will be sufficient to dispose of this writ petition.4. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is in respect to adjudication of dispute in respect to the title of parties. It is claimed that the grand father of the petitioners filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.7. 1997. After about four years, respondent No. 4 filed a time barred appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The petitioners filed objection to appeal and an application was moved that as the appellant has also filed Restoration Application before the Consolidation Officer, appeal is not mainta...
P.K. Lahiri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)406; [2005]275ITR17(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances to the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the conditions as prescribed under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act were not fulfilled in the assessee's case and thus he was liable to capital gains ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in placing reliance on the definition of 'land appurtenant' as given in Section 5(1)(ivc) of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :4. The applicant's father Dr. K.N. Lahiri, gifted 10,700 sq. ft. of land to the applicant on August 3, 1971. The property is situated in a compound of nearly 3.5 acres co...
Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC588; 2005(2)AWC1746
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein is the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by Addl. District Judge/Judge Small Causes Court (Court No. 9) Merrut whereby application filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. was rejected.2. Before adverting to the disputation involved in the suit, it would be useful to portray summary of facts bearing on the controversy involved in the matter. The dispute substantially is that the applicant having instituted a suit being suit No. 60 of 2003 earlier in point of time for the relief of restraining the respondent from forcibly evicting the applicant from the premises in question except in accordance with law, the subsequent suit bearing No. 28 of 2003 instituted by the respondent for eviction from the self-same premises and for arrears of rent and damages was liable to be stayed in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C.3. In so far as subsequent suit instituted by respondent is concerned, it would appear that the same was instituted in the Court of J...
U.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC940
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Miss Bushra Maryam, for the contesting workman,2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the parties all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.3. Writ Petition No. 36754 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) has. been filed praying for quashing the Order dated 28th July, 1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1998 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allowing the application of workman. Writ Petition No. 33126 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition) has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Order dated 31st August, 2001 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner allowing the application of the workman filed under Section 6H(1) of U.P. Indust...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)397; [2006]280ITR249(All)
1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, 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 facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the return signed by Mr. K.K. Varshney was a valid return as he acted as an agent of the assessee and also in further holding that the loss claimed therein should have been considered in correct perspective ?'2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are as under:The respondent-assessee is a co-operative society. It is being assessed to income-tax in the status of AOP. It had filed return on 30th June, 1979, showing loss to Rs. 1,33,10,000 which was within the stipulated period under Sections 139(1) and 139(3) of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act for non-compliance of notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harish Sugar Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]279ITR589(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that disallowance under Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be made only with reference to the interest paid to the directors and their relations on their deposits and not of others ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee is a private limited company. It derives income from commission agency of khandsari and sugar and from own trading in the commodities. For the assessment year in question it claimed interest payment of Rs. 2,45,896. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a s...
Sardar Bhagwan Singh Chawla Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN605(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court:'Whether, the penalty imposed is legally sustainable in view of the evidence already furnished ?'The present reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78 in respect of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The applicant is being assessed to Income Tax in the status of an individual. He was a partner in the firm, M/s. Sunder Timber Mart. On 4-12-1976, a search was conducted in the residential premises of the applicant. During the search some assets including cash of Rs. 57,000 were found. At the time of search, the statement of the applicant was also recorded. In that statement he had stated that the amount has been taken by him from his relatives and friends. More specifically, he had s...
Cit Vs. Swadeshi Mining and Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN601(All)
ORDERBy the Court1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following three 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 facts and in law the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) in allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 5,11,002 and Rs. 1,86,215 in respect of interest on excess realisation of levy sugar price by holding that it was on admissible deduction2. Whether on the facts and in law the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 1,01,275 on account of interest on arrears of cane price and commission by holding that it was an admissible deduction?3. Whether on facts and in law the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) in allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 1,56,100 on account of interest on arrears of sugar cane price and commission?'2...
Umesh Chandra Vs. Nagar Nigam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC899; 2005(1)ESC787; [2005(105)FLR84]; (2005)2UPLBEC1789
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R. K. Misra, and Sri 'U. K. Misra for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this, writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 20.9.2001, given by the labour court. U. P. Allahabad and the order dated 20.9.2002, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Safai Naik with full back wages with effect from 31.10.1990.3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :The petitioner was engaged as daily wager Safai Naik on 10.1.1989 by the respondent No. 1 which engagement came to end on 8.2.1989. The petitioner was subsequently again engaged by the respondent No. 1 on 30.5.1989 and c...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »