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.
Kushal Pal Singh Son of Sri Chheddi Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Sri Ha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)24; III(2005)BC464; 2005CriLJ3035
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant application has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution of applicant Kushal Pal Singh in Criminal Case No. 837 of 2001, Harpal Singh v. Kushal Pal Singh pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Heard Sri J. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State of U. P. and Sri N. K. Dutta, learned counsel for O. P. No. 2, Harpal Singh.3. The facts as revealed from the record is that Harpal Singh, resident of Tundla, district Firozabad, filed Complaint Case No. 837 of 2001 against the applicant Kushal Pal Singh, Managing Director, Inland Development Finance Limited, Rajghat Road, Aligarh, under Section 138 of the Act containing the fact that Kushal Pal Singh had got deposited Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant Harpal Singh in the account of the Firm Inland Development Finance Ltd., Aligarh, and had promised to m...
Mohan Lal Bagla Son of Late Gopi Kishan Bagla Vs. Board of Revenue and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All308
S.K. Singh, J.1. These are two applications filed by Narendra Kumar and others, respondents in the writ petition.2. By application No. 30451 of 2005, review of the judgment of this Court dated 11.8.2004 has been sought and by Application No. 29291 of 2005, six months time has been prayed for vacating the properties in question.3. On the close of arguments, learned counsel who argued the matter from both sides,, submitted that they may give brief note which may facilitate this Court in passing the order and thus, brief note/submission given has not been made part of record and that has been just perused. A brief note given by Sri Singh, learned counsel in support of review petition is clearly reiteration of various facts and details in the light of evidence which is the part of counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and thus they are reiteration of the facts and details on which reappraisal and re-hearing appears to be an effort which for the reasons indicated in this order and w...
Ram Nath and Ram Lakhan Sons of Mathura Vs. Deputy Director of Consoli ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3699
S.K. Singh, J.1. These are two connected writ petitions which arise out of the one and the same judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaunpur dated 12.5.83 by which revision filed by Ram Nath and others was partly allowed.2. One writ petition has been filed by Ram Nath and others i.e. writ petition No. 9038 of 1993 and another writ petition has been filed by Shiv Ram i.e. writ petition No. 8703 of 1983. For convenience writ petition No. 9038 of 1983 filed by Ram Nath and others is being taken up as leading case and the judgment rendered will govern both the cases.3. As facts of both writ petitions are interconnected and they are one and the same, their summary us noted below will suffice.4. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjudication of title between the parties. Mentioning of the details of writ petition of Ram Nath i.e. writ petition No. 9038 of 1983 will be sufficient for disposal of both cases. The disput...
Pramod Kumar S/O Late Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer, Cent ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR742]; (2005)IIILLJ91All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 13.5.1998, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur ( for short 'Labour Court'). By the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted compensation to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and was engaged on 1.4.1985 as daily wager in the Transport Nagar Branch of the Canara Bank, Agra up to 27.11.1989. He worked as daily wager from time to time and worked in different branches of the Bank, namely, Bodla, Jaipur House Colony, Bhainpur from 20.11.1989 to 30.7.1990. He then claims to have been transferred to Canara Bank at Firozabad w.e.f. 30.8.1990 and worked there up to 30.11.1993 without any break and then at Sadar Bazar Branch, firozabad till 20.3.1995. His services were dispensed with by the Regiona...
Vikas Son of Sri Ram Autar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC110
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Vivek Dhaka, Sri V.K. Singh and Sri M.N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the complainant.2. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vikas with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in case crime No. 51 of 2005, under Section 498A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4/ Dowry Prohibition Act, Kankar Khera, district Meerut.3. The facts in brief of the case are that the first informant Ratan Lal lodged an F.I.R. at police station Kankar Khera on 3.2.2005 at 4.30 p.m in respect of the alleged incident dated 3.2.2005 which occurred at 11.00 a.m., in vicinity of mohalla Sainik Bihar, Meerut against the applicant, his mother, his maternal uncle namely Shreepal, Smt Nirmala wife of Shreepal and Vinod, the Mausera brother of the applicant, on the basis of the following allegations:-That the ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chanda Radio
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR245(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad at the instance of the Revenue 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 legally justified in holding that no penalty could be imposed on a registered firm where the advance-tax paid exceeded the tax assessed on it as a registered firm even though as an unregistered firm the tax payable would be more than the advance-tax?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The income tax return for the assessment year 1983-84 was due on 31st July, 1983 as the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1983. It was filed on 19th November, 1985 and was late by more than 27 months. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act for late filing of the return of income. A written reply was filed ...
Sudarshan Trading Company through It's Proprietor Manoj Kumar Kesharva ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2969; III(2005)BC478; (2005)2UPLBEC1453
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:(1) to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.12.2004 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1825 of 2004 and another order dated 4.1.2005 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2003 between Surya enterprises v. Manoj Kumar Kesharwani and Ors. under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court Tiptur, Tumkur District, Karnataka (Annexure No. 10 and 11 ).(2) to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to pass order of arrest and not to take coercive steps against the petitioners in the aforesaid complaint criminal case pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court Tiptur, Tumkur District, Karnataka.(3) to pass such other proper and appropriate order or direction i...
Strong Construction Through Its Partner Shesh Nath Singh Son of Sri Ra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All224; 2005(2)AWC2058; 2005(2)ESC1385
A.K. Yog, J.1. Aforementioned Writ Petitions, listed in bunch as Connected cases, on the pleadings, raise a common legal question, viz. 'what ' Stamp Duty' is chargeable on 'security' deposit in pursuance of 3 term and condition of an 'agreement' to ensure performance of work- contract, in question executed between concerned respective parties in the above writ Petition?' In other words-whether a document/deed furnishing security, security, as should be treated as 'mortgaged deed' under Section 2(17) or a security deed under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B, Indian Stamp -Act, 1899 (as amended in State of U.P.), called the the Act.2. Learned counsels for the parties join in making statement that facts of each need not be referred and in an the cases only one question of law (as noted above) arises for adjudication by this Court. In the above circumstances, it is not insisted by them to file Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits in each case. None raised objection on all these cases, being hear...
Cwt, Agra Vs. Shri Bhagwan Agarwal and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN265(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court:'Whether the ITAT is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(l)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in respect of his share in the value of immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87.3. The respondent-assessee is a partner in a firm which owns a cinema building and claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The claim was not entertained by the assessing officer on the ground that the property in question was owned by the firm and not by the partners of the firm and as such they were not entitled for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the share in immovable property owned by the firm. The Commis...
Udai Pratap Singh Son of Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, Presently Posted as L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1755
Sabhajeet Yadav, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner who is a part time Lecturer in the institution in question has moved to this Court seeking relief in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the term and conditions of his appointment letter which presides that he will be paid honorarium at a rate of Rs. 10/- per period and further writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay him regular and equal remuneration/salary as being paid to a lecturer teaching in the intermediate classes in the subjects in question in the institution which is on grant-in-aid list of the State Government and further direction of payment of arrears of salary and interest at the rate of 10% thereon has also been sought for. By amendment application moved in the writ petition anther relief has been sought in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as a regular teacher and quash the provisions of para 6 of the Government order dated 10.8.2001.2. The fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »