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.
Vikrant Tyres Limited Now Known as J.K. Industries Limited Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]148STC122(All)
A.K. Yog, J. 1. All Respondents are represented through Standing Counsel and that the arguments raised at the Bar require no enquiry on facts, we proceed to decide writ petition finally, without calling for Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits, at admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule-2 Rules of Court.2. These writ petitions relate to three assessment years, as follows:1. Writ Petition No 455 of 2005-A.Y. 1998-99-arising from impugned order dt. 25-2-2005-Ann. 10 to W.P. under Section 21(2) U.P.T.T. Act for reassessment passed by Addl. Commissioner, Trade Tax2. Writ Petition No. 456 of 2005-A.Y. 1999-00----------------do---------.........do-- Ann. 4 to W.P.3. Writ Petition No 457 of 2005-A.Y. 2001-02............-- do...................do---Ann. 4 to W.P.3. M/S Vikrant Tyres Limited, (the petitioner) being aggrieved against orders dated 25-2-2005 (as indicated above) passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade 1, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur under Section 21(2), U.P. Trade T...
Mukesh (Minor) Son of Mahajan Under the Guardianship of Smt. Rukmani D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2529
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The present writ petition questions the legality of the orders dated 30.12.1995 and 11.9.1996 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Maharajganj and Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby reference under section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act has been answered against the petitioner and the petitioner has been called upon to make good the deficiency reported in the payment of the stamp duty.2. I have heard Sri J.P, Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the records, as also the submission advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.3. The dispute relates to plot No. 443 M area 0.18 acres of Village Dinguri, Post Office Kamasin Khurd Via Campiarganj, district Maharajganj, which was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 12.6.1994 and the amount of consideration is Rs. 16,200/-. It appears that si...
Committee of Management, Udit NaraIn Post Graduate College Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1729
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.C. Srivastava for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2820 of 1997, which is treated as the leading writ petition and Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.C. Singh for respondents 4, 5 and 6. Learned standing counsel appears for States respondents.2. The Committee of Management Udit Narain Post Graduate College Padrauna, through its Manager Shri Ratanjit Pratap Narain singh has, in writ petition No. 2820 of 1997, prayed for quashing an order dated 5.12.1996 (Annexure No. 17 to the writ petition) passed by Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur by which he has declared the appointments of respondents 4, 5 and promotion of respondent no. 6 as Clerk, Assistant Librarian and Clerk by promotion, respectively in the College to be valid. In Writ Petition No. 21926 of 2003, the same Committee of Management through its Manager Sri Ratanjit Pratap Narain Singh has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.3....
R and P Exports Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)45; 2005(2)ESC1398; [2005]279ITR536(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that for the purpose of availing deduction under Section 80HH and 80I, direct employment of the stipulated number of workers is relevant and individuals or workers of outside parties, whose services have been availed of by the assessee in its own manufacturing activities either on contract basis, job basis or on per piece basis, have not to be taken into account?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The reference relates to the assessment year 1987-88.3. The applicant is a registered firm and is engaged primarily in the export of brass artwares and other Indian handicrafts. Its claim for deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act was rejected by the Assessi...
Vimal Pratap Singh Son of Kamal Singh Yadav and ors. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1380
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Amit Sthelkar for respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being finally decided at the admission stage.2. All the petitioners were candidates for direct recruitment on nine vacancies of Class III posts in the Judgeship at Etah. Out of these six vacancies were on the post of Apprentices, two on the posts of Copyist and two, on the posts of Stenographers, The advertisement was published in news paper 'Zila Times' dated 14.11.2003 and 'Rojgar Sangrah'. The petitioners 1 to 9, 11 and 12 applied for clerical posts while petitioner 10 applied for the post of Stenographer. The stenography test was held on 13.12.2003. The written examination was held on. 14.12.2003 in which all the petitioners participated. The select list was approved and forwarded . by the...
Mumtazul Haq Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC810; 2005(3)AWC2426
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This petition by the landlord under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order-dated 26.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in Rent Control Appeal No. 319 of 1995, Mumtazul Haq v. Smt. Khursheeda and Ors., and judgment and order-dated 23.9.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 in P.A. Case No. 74/84 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.3. I have heard Sri M.S. Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Islam, learned Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.4. It appears that an application for release was filed under Section 21 (i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the landlord in the year 1984 mainly on the ground...
Principal Amar Shaheed Inter College Through Devaraj Singh Chauhan Act ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR5]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 19.2.2000 published on 2.2.2001 passed by Labour Court Agra holding that the termination of the workman- Vinod Kumar- respondent No. 2 is illegal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-institution is recognized private school which receives grant-in- aid from the State Government. It imparts education to children upto Intermediate classes. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 14.11.1985 as temporary safai karmachari in the institution.3. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 did not perform his work regularly and properly and did not improve his conduct as such a show cause notice dated 14.11.1986 was issued to him to show as to why he be not suspended for dereliction of duty. No reply was given by respondent No. 2 to the show cause notice and he also did not improve his work and conduct. He was thereafter placed under suspension vide order dated 4.3.1987 vide annexure 4 to the writ petiti...
Ram Asrey Lal Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1610
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the suspension order dated 24.2.2005 mainly on the ground that petitioner's licence of wholesale dealership should not have been cancelled by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-dealer.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a licence holder as a wholesale dealer in the aforesaid Samiti Tilhar. His licence has been put under suspension vide order dated 24.2.2005. Hence, this petition.3. Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that suspension order has been passed in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions, which provide that before passing the order of suspension, the dealer is to be given a show cause notice, and only after according him the opportunity of hearing, the licence can be put under suspension. He has placed very heavy reliance on...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shekhar Chand JaIn and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)363
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Tribunal, 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 the Tribunal was right to cancel the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(a) treating the registered firm as unregistered firm in view of the provisions of Section 271(2) of the IT Act, while under similar circumstances penalty was held to be leviable in the case of Kalu Ram Ladha Ram v. CIT?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are as follows :3. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1983-84. The respondent-assessee, a partnership registered firm filed its return late with the delay of two complete months in its filing. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The penalty proceeding was contested by the assessee, on the plea that the tax finally assessed was less than what has been paid by it as advance tax and, theref...
Kishore Seth Vs. Satish Chandra Nigam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2480
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.9.2002, passed by the respondent No. 4 in Rent Appeal No. 27 of 2002 (Annexure-1) and judgment and order dated 3.2.2001, passed by the respondent No. 5 in Rent Case No. 45 of 2000 (Annexure- 2 to the writ petition.2. Counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.4. The dispute relates to House No. 18/41-42 Kursawan, Kanpur, owned by respondent No. 1. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 let out the disputed house having three stories to Ram Das, father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 excluding taxes. The landlord had one small room, latrine and bathroom on the ground floor and one room, kitchen and bathroom at first floor in his possessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »