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.
Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College Through Its Manager, Jit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2650; [2005]2ITR1113(All)
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh on behalf of the Committee of Management, Sri R.C. Singh on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Standing Counsel on behalf of other respondents.2. Adarsh Inter College, Handia Mittoopur, Azamgarh is an Institution recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The said institution is run and managed in accordance with an approved scheme of administration. Petitioner Committee of Management through its alleged Manger Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaisawal has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 3rd January, 2004. By means of the said order, the Regional Joint Director of Education has held that the elections set up by the petitioner dated 17.11.2002 cannot be recognized and therefore he has appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak in the institution for getting fresh elections of the Committee of Management held.3. On behalf petitioner it is contended that undisputed elections had taken plac...
Kalloo and ors., Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC713
S.U. Khan, J.1. The following four Writ Petitions were decided by me on 25.10.2004 Writ Petition Nos. 21874 of 2001, 33657 of 2001, 36225 of 2001 and 36226 of 2004.2. S.L.P. (Civil) No(s) 786-789 of 2005 (reported in 2005 (1) ARC 712) O.P.S. Malik v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Ors. filed against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.1.2005.3. Through the aforesaid judgment O.P.S. Malik to whom property in dispute had been allotted by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was directed to vacate the entire building. The property in dispute which is a big bungalow contains some servant quarters also. These two applications have been filed by occupants of the servant quarters also. Through these applications it has been stated that applicants were not parties in any of the four writ petition, hence they are not liable to ejectment under order dated 25.10.2004 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. According to the learned Counsel for these applicants...
Phoolwati (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Viiith Additional District and Sessions ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC797; 2005(3)AWC2160
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This petition by the tenants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order-dated 19.11.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 in Rent Control Appeal No. 33 of 1997 whereby he allowed the application of the landlady-respondent No. 2 under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed tenants-appellants to vacate the disputed garage within a period of three months.2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally.3. It appears that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) (b) of the Act was moved by the landlady for release of the garage bearing No. 301 mainly on the grounds that she needed the accommodation in question for opening a confectionary shop. She further alleged that the garage in question was very old ...
Smt. Shanti Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1042
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Bharti, Advocate representing the petitioner and Sri R.D. Shahi Advocate/Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Writ petition is finally heard and decided as all the parties are served, represented through counsels and also filed counter and rejoinder affidavits as provided under Chapter XXII Rule 2-II Proviso to Rules of Court.3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming writ of mandamus to direct the Chief Medical Superintendent, Virangana Avanti Bai Chikitsalaya, Lucknow (C.M.S.) to decide her representation dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) regarding her date of birth in the light of the medical certificate of age issued by the then Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.) dated 23/27.6.1992 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and quash order dated 5.10.2004 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) directing her to submit documents for preparation of pension papers on the ground that she will...
Sri Shyam Sunder Shukla, Principal B.R. Inter Collage Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2022
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, (who does not propose to file any counter affidavit), and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. Bhavani Prasad Ram Deo Prasad Intermediate College, Harriaya, District Basti (hereinafter referred to as the 'college') is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The provisions of U.P. High School and Irtermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers and other employees of the college.3. There was a dispute between the petitioner, Sri Shyam Sunder Shukla and respondent No. 4, Sri Veer Bahadur Singh with regard to the inter se seniority in the Lecturer Grade. The said dispute was subject matter of...
Cit Vs. U.P. Forest Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN481(All)
ORDER1. 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified, in law, in holding that the authorities belowhad gone wrong in holding that the sales were not within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of U.P.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding that the assessee-corporation was entitled to relief under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the additions were not liable to be made on this account?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in treating the assessee-corporation's income as exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as taken in the additional ground of appeal before the ITAT?'2. The ref...
Ceekay Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN320(All)
ORDERThe 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:At the instance of the assessee :'Whether on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee-company is not an 'industrial company'?'At the instance of the revenue:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law, justified in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.The applicant is a private limited company and is engaged in the construction activities. It undertakes running contracts for construction of building. For the assessment year in question, the applicant claimed that it is industrial undertaking and, there...
Cit Vs. S.N. Anand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN390(All)
ORDER1. 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 in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct to hold that there was no case for reopening of assessment under section 147(a)/148 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1978-79,1980-81 to 1983-84.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee - S.N. Anand is a partner in a firm MIS. Sarang Products, Modinagar, in the capacity of karta of the HUR His wife Smt. Anand was also a partner in the said firm in her individual capacity. In the income returns, the assessee did not disclose the income of his wife. The original assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated for all these years on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed t...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC919; (2005)1UPLBEC839
Vineet Saran, J.1. Since all these writ petitions are knit together by similar facet of controversy, based on common questions of fact and law, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48316 of 2004 shall be treated as the leading petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the leading writ petition, which shall be referred to in this judgment, Some short counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have also been filed in certain other writ petitions, but not in all. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties these writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. I have heard both the sides at length on various dates. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners in the leading writ petition, led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, and the other Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all other writ petitions have adopted the same. Similarly, the ar...
Smt. Usha Rani Sharma Wife of Sri Mahesh Prasad Sharma Vs. Deputy Insp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2618; 2005(2)ESC1038; (2005)2UPLBEC1906
Ashok Bhushan. J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated 4th January, 2005 wherein the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shishir Kumar, has rejected the writ petition of the appellant.2. The appellant was aggrieved by the recommendation of the committee putting respondent No. 6 in Serial No. 1 of the final preference list and by reason of her being put in Serial No. 2.3. As a result of this final recommendation, respondent No. 6 got selected and she has been discharging her duties from as early as 1991 now.4. No interim order could be obtained, or was obtained, in aid of the writ petition by the appellant and thus respondent No. 6 has worked without let, or hindrance so long.5. This would be sufficient justification, in our opinion, for the appeal to be dismissed and for us not to upset the long standing position obtaining so far. However, the legal point raised by the appellant also has an answer.6. The legal point arises in this way; the writ petitioner and respondent No. 6 had secured equal mark...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »