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.
Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC592; 2005(2)AWC1148
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. By means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have prayed for quashing the Order dated 25.7.2001, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in S.C.C. Revision No. 100 of 1999, Suraj Pal Singh v, Smt. Shanti Devi and others, whereby the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision with costs and set aside the Order dated 22.4,1999 passed by the' Judge Small Causes, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 551 of 1993.2. The facts, in nutshell, for the decision of this petition are that the petitioners filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Agra, for eviction of the tenant-respondent No. 2 from the shop in dispute. The suit was filed with the allegations that late Vijayender Pal Singh, who was husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, was allotted a plot by the Gaon Sabha. After obtaining possession, he built shops thereon. Late Vijayender Pal Singh opened a clinic in one of th...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mustafa Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)411; [2005]276ITR601(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions at the instance of the Commissioner under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after 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 holding that the annual letting value of the godown owned by the assessee and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included in his total income under Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1981- 82.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:-The assessee-respondent is owner of a house property bearing municipal No. 174/2 situate on plot Nos. 824/2, 823/1 and 825. The assessee is also a partner in a Firm known as M/s. Sikandar Shahi Zarda Factory. A major portion of the! aforesaid house property has been in occupation of M/s....
Committee of Management, Bhartiya Adarsh Inter College Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1728; 2005(2)ESC964; (2005)2UPLBEC811
Arun Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri N.L. Pandey on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Kapil Tyagi on behalf of respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. Sri Krishak Vidya Pracharini Sabha, district Bulandshahr (now Gautam Budli Nagar) is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society has established a recognized and aided Intermediate College in the name and style of Bhartiya Adarsh Inter College, Tilpata, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The said institution is run and managed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education Act as well as in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration duly approved by the Regional Joint Director of Education. Undisputed elections of the Committee of Management in accordance with the approved scheme of administration took place on 12.12.1998. According to the provisions of the scheme of administration, as applicable then, the term of the Committee of Man...
Purshottam Das Agrawal Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC617; 2005(2)AWC1537
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute, challenges the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19th January 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the appellate authority has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in his written statement at the appellate stage in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question. This application was registered as P.A. Case No. 96 of 1987. This P.A. case No. 96 of 1987 has been dismissed on 7th February 1991 by the prescribed authority and the order of the prescribed authority was challenged by the landlord before the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which is registered as Appeal No. 53 of 1991 which ...
Shamsher Khan Vs. District Judge and 2 ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC747
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment and order dated 28.4.1997 and 5.8.1998 passed by the Judge Small 'Causes Court, Saharanpur and the District Judge, Saharanpur whereby the suit of the respondent landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed and the revision against the same filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed.2. I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The only question involved in the present petition is whether a short fall of a negligible amount in making the deposit while claiming benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) could be ignored or it would be fatal for the tenant and will disentitle him claiming the protection from eviction.4. The facts relating to the present case are that on the first date of hearing the peti...
Mirza Ashraf Vs. Qudrat Ullah Alias Chhunnoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC749; 2005(2)AWC1539
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Second appeal in hand has been instituted by the plaintiff appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1984 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi whereby Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1983 was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 23.5.1983 in Original suit No. 356 of 1979 was nodded in affirmance.2. The dispute in the instant petition revolves round House No. B-3/430 enumerated in Schedule B to the plaint, which is situated in locality known as Shivala District Varanasi. According to the plaint allegations, the house in question originally belonged to Rahmat Ullah, grandfather of the plaintiff appellant. The aforesaid Rahmatullah executed a Will dated 12.5.1913 in favour of Asmat Ullah, his own brother but subsequently, on a second thought, he, rescinded his earlier Will and executed a second Will dated 19.5.1917 in favour of his daughter-in-law namely, Jafri Khanam, wife of Amir Mirza. The plaintiff being grand-son of Rahmat Ullah, it is claimed...
Smt. Krishna Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1732; 2005(2)ESC879; (2005)2UPLBEC1883
1. These two writ petitions deal with the constitutionality as well as interpretation of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (the Act), which provides for motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha of a Zila Panchayat.The Facts:2. The election to the post of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat Deoria (the Zila Panchayat) was held in the year 2000. In this election Smt. Krishna Jaiswal (Smt. Jaiswal) was elected as the Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat. The Zila Panchayat consists of 40 elected members. Twenty eight elected members gave notice to the Collector under Section 28 of the Act to bring the motion of no confidence against her on 29th November, 2004. The Collector passed an Order on 30.11.2004 convening the meeting on 20.12.2004 at 12.00 a.m. in the hall of the Zila Parishad to consider the no confidence motion against her. He also passed an Order that the Appar Mukhya Adhikari, Deoria (the AMA) to serve notice on the members by re...
Ram Het Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1718; 2005(2)ESC903; [2005(105)FLR8]; (2005)2UPLBEC1536
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed on 20.2.1987 to officiate on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal. Subsequently, the post on which the petitioner was working became substantive in nature on 19.10.1989. The services of the petitioner was dispensed by an Order dated 9.11.1989. The petitioner made a representation on 11.12.1989, which was rejected and consequently, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1990 in which an interim Order was granted permitting the petitioner to continue to function on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal. This writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 5.12.2003 directing that the petitioner's case for regularisation be considered under the relevant regularisation Rules and till such time, as the petitioner's case for regularisation remained pending, he was allowed to continue in service. Based on this ...
Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. Additional Excise Commissi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC936
P. Krishna, J.1. Raising a short controversy the present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 20th of September, 2002 passed by the respondent in the purported exercise of power under the U.P. Sheera Niyantrak Adhiniyam 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The said Order is a composite Order. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge to only a part of it by which the respondent directed the petitioner to pay administrative charge at the rate of Rs. 5/- per quintal as a condition for permission to remove the stock of 86,421.85 quintals of Sheera.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ, petition are as follows :The petitioner, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, is running a Sugar Unit at Khatauli in District Muzaffar Nagar. It manufactures sugar from sugarcane using vacuum pan crystallization process. Molasses is the bye-product in the process of sugar manufacturing, from which no more sucrose can be...
Pradeep Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC809
1. This case is an eye-opener as to what extent a litigantcan have the audacity to misuse and abuse the process of the Court. One of thepetitioners, whose appointment itself stood cancelled by operation of law isnot only in service but had succeeded In joining a college of his choice,though the vacancy of his subject had never occurred therein, only by playingfraud upon the Court.2. Petitioners stood selected for appointment as Lecturer in EducationDepartment by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Commission') pursuant to advertisement No. 29. Petition hasbeen filed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their claim forinter changing the Colleges where their names have been recommended by theDirector of Education (Higher Education) (hereinafter referred to as the'Director').3. Consequent to the selections made by the Commission on the basis ofAdvertisement No. 29 issued by it for filling up the posts of Lecturers in theColleges in var...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »