Allahabad Court March 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.
Sant Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2414
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This is tenants' petition arising out of a suit for eviction of the tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 1986 was filed by the landlords in the Court of Judge. Small Causes, Azamgarh for eviction of the tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2850 and damages. The suit was filed with the allegations that defendant No. 3 (Sahab Singh) occupied the disputed shop as a tenant and paid Rs. 80 per mensem as rent. He further paid Rs. 15 as electricity charges. He, however, failed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. October, 1983. He sublet the shop in question to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Sant Vijay Singh and Dr. Jai Shankar Singh). The landlords sent a notice-dated 28.2.1986 to the defendants, which was served on 1.3.1986. They, however, neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in question.2. On 5.9.1986, Jai Shankar Singh, one of the defendants, appeared in the Court and moved an appl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR161(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 82,42,876 being the excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company in the year under consideration ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,80,098 on account of interest on excess levy price charged by the assessee ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation in the case of the trailers at the rate admissible in the case of transport vehicles even though the trailers are not motorized vehicles ?2. Briefl...
Cit, Kanpur Vs. Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN177(All)
ORDERP. Krishna, J. 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the payments of Rs. 28,205 and Rs. 30,218 for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively under the head 'Bonus' to Senior Members of Employees who are not entitled to receive the bonus under the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is an admissible expenditure under the Income Tax Act ?'2. Bri efly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are as follows :The reference relates to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-8 1. The assessee-respondent is a limited company eaming its income from the manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessing officer as well as Commissioner (Appeals) both disallowed Rs. 28,205 and Rs. 30,218...
Cit Vs. Pratibha Chhabigrih
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN342(All)
ORDERThe 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in confirming the CIT (Appeals) finding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act on the entire cinema machinery ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of running a cinema hall and also letting out of theatre. For the assessment year in question, the respondent-assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Act on the entire cinema machinery including electric generator. The assessing officer had allowed the investment allowance only in respect o...
Roshan Lal Malhotra Vs. Raj Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC700; 2005(2)AWC1083
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the tenant-petitioner is directed against the orders dated 8th September, 2003 and 23rd July. 2004. passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act'), copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '2' and V, respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner in this petition is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute. On 18th November, 2002 an application has been filed by the landlord-respondent purporting to be an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority vide its Order dated 15th February, 2003, held that the service of summons of the aforesaid application for release of the accommodation filed by the landlord is sufficient a...
Manohar Lal Son of Late Sri Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1086
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly dated 1.11.99 and the order of the District Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 26.8.98 cancelling the fisheries lease granted to the petitioner on 20.7.96 in exercise of power under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.3. A fishery lease of plot No. 261 area 1.044 hectares situate in village Umaria, Tehsil Bisalpur was granted on 20.7.96 to the petitioner for 10 years. Earlier the lease was granted to Jhaghan Lal whose lease expired on 30.11.95. A proposal was made by Gram Sabha Umaria to grant the lease to the petitioner. However, the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit submitted a report that lease had been wrongly granted to the petitioner, prior to expiry of earlier lease. The lease of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 1.11.99. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through the Regional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC748; 2005(2)ESC1205; [2005(105)FLR779]
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed against an Award dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (III), U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Dispute No. 165/94. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has held that the termination of the workman w.e.f. 26.10.1969 was illegal but instead of granting relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages the Labour Court only granted wages and other benefits from 1.9.1994 to 31.12.1997, i.e., wages from the date of reference to the date of retirement.3. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1, the workman concerned was working on the post of Driver in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. On 15.5.1969 he was found carrying 16 passengers without tickets besides two cycles without proper booking, when the bus was checked by the checking authorities on Fatehpur-Kishanpur route. He was removed from service on 2.10.1...
Prem Nath Son of Late Ganga Ram Alias Suddhi Sagar Singh Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1038
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.3.2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur and for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess and interfere in peaceful farming and cultivation by the petitioner over the land in dispute.3. The petitioner is alleged to be in possession over the plot Nos. 40, 57, 85 and 175 (old) situated in village Belua Bajahur, Pargana Sakteshgarh, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur since prior to 1986 on the basis of a Patta given to him in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned. The village came in survey proceedings in the year 1989-90. The Assistant Revenue Officer vide order dated...
The Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited Through Chief General Manager Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1498
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned Award dated 23.6.2000 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Betiahata, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Dispute No. 234/89.3. By the impugned award, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Nathu Ram Singh, respondent No. 3 along with back wages.4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-Sugar Mill is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Delhi. The Company has a manufacturing unit at Basti which is engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar by vacuum pan process. Respondent No. 3 was engaged by the petitioner as a Cane Development Supervisor on 13.2.1988. The petitioner claims that the respondent-workman was a 'trainee supervisor' on probation appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/- per month whereas the respondent-workman claims that he was ap...
Ram Naresh Trivedi Son of Late Sri Shiv Sagar Lal Trivedi Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3042
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Anees Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner, Sri Ram Naresh Trivedi has been granted an arms licence being Licence No.AB-793289.The aforesaid arms licence of the petitioner has been suspended under order of the Additional Distict Magistrate, City, Ghaziabad dated 31st Janaury,2005 under Section 17 of the Arms Act.3. On behalf of the petitioner if is contended that the suspension of the arms licence of the petitioner during the pendency of enquiry in the criminal case, is legally not justified in view of the Five Judges' Judgment of this Court in the case of Rana Praptap Singh v. State of U.P. as also in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh v. District Magistrate, Sharaswati and Anr. reported in 2001 (2) J.I.C. 304. It is further contended that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, City, Ghaziabad dated 31st Janaury, 2005, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »