Allahabad Court April 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.
Dharmendra Singh Sub-inspector Son of Late Satyaveer Singh Vs. State o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1435
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. The appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of. We have not called for affidavits. The allegations in the stay application cannot be taken to be admitted.2. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by his Lordship's order dated 3.3.2005. The writ petitioner is appellant before us. There are charges in the criminal Court against him under Section 498A of the IPC. It is said that inspite of his wife being living he is living in adultery with a lady police constable. In the preliminary departmental enquiry, the petitioner has not been exonerated but the Deputy Inspector General, who is the appellate authority over the first departmental disciplinary authority, has written a letter, and thereby stayed the enquiry against the appellant pending disposal of the criminal case.3. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellate authority has no authority to stay the departmental enquiry. In the same vein the respondent has arg...
R.K. Mehrotra Son of Shri Kedar Nath Mehrotra Vs. U.P. Sahkari Sanstha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3624; 2005(3)ESC1715; [2005(106)FLR226]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner committed serious financial irregularities such as embezzlement of funds and interpolation of the records on the basis of which, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.6.1995. Subsequently, he was issued three chargesheets on 9.5.1996, 9.1.2002 and 6.6.2002. The petitioner did not submit any reply to these chargesheets denying the charges and instead through various letters asked for supplying of certain documents. The petitioner alleged that ultimately he was issued a show cause notice on 6.5.2003 and eventually, an order dated 6.11.2003 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the order of termination was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no enquiry was held nor any Inquiry Officer was appointed nor any evidence was led and since the charges was not proved and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order, terminating the ser...
Girja Shanker Soni Son of Ram Swaroop Soni Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1602; [2005(106)FLR12]
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi for respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2002 by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56@ after making him entitled to receive three months salary.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that there was no material other than an adverse entry dated 10.5.2002, which was awarded to the petitioner and that too just two days before the order of compulsory retirement was passed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this entry has nothing to do with the work and conduct of the petitioner. It was made concerning an endorsement made by the petitioner in the stock register that only 9 out of 11 Almirahs were received in the Courts at Charkhari. The District Judge found that incorrect entry has been made in the stock register by the petitioner who ...
District Committee Centra of Indian Trade Unions Vs. Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(106)FLR80]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Learned counsel for the respondent was granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit on 6th February, 1995, but no counter affidavit was filed and again three weeks further time was granted on 8.10.2004. Yet again by a peremptory order three weeks time was granted on 23rd. November, 2004 to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.2. This petition has remained pending for the last thirteen years and it does not appear appropriate to grant further time.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and MKirtika Singh for the respondents on merit.4. This writ petition is directed against an award dated 13.11.1992 as published on 21st. December, 1992 by which the reference has been answered against the workman and in favour of the employers.5. The services of fifteen workmen of M/s. Lohia Machines Limited were dispensed with by various termination orders which gave rise to corresponding number of Adjudication Cases which were registered ...
Kumar Stone Works Partner Inder Singh Son of Ram Prasad Singh and ors. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2177
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In this is batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the realisation of transit fee on transport of stone chips, stone grit, stone ballast, sand, morrum, coal, lime stone, dolomite etc., which they transport within the State of U.P. and sell to different purchasers. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the notification dated 14.6.2004 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh amending the U.P. (Transport of Timber and other Forest Produce) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 975 of 2004 is being treated as the leading petition. Briefly stated, the facts of the aforementioned petition are as follows:-According to the petitioners, they have been- granted mining lease by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, for excavation of boulders, rocks, sand and morrum in the district of Sonebhadra from the plots situated on the land owned by the State Government which do not come within any forest are...
Raj Kapoor Sharma S/O Late Lal Bachan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Prades ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3727
Arun Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Vashishtha Tewari, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 5 learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Parties agree that the present writ petition may be finally at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit. 2. The petitioner, Raj Kapoor Sharma is the elected Pradhan Gram Panchayat Mahuari, Block Pathardewa District Respondent no. 5, Jai Prakash is alleged to have made certain complaints against, the petitioner on the ground that i the Pradhan (petitioner) has committed various financial and administrative irregularities. A preliminary enquiry was held against petitioner as Pradhan in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 Rules). By means of the order dated 30th March, 2005 the District Magistrate seized/suspended the financial and and administrative powers ...
Shyam Bihari Son of Shri Paras Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Through Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2189
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2005 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwal dismissing the writ petition on merit.3. The appellant tiled the writ petition challenging the appellate order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as well as the revisional order passed by Inspector General of Police under the Rules. The Rules have been framed under the Police Act, 1861. This special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The question first to be considered is as to whether this appeal is barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court ?4. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is extracted below:-5. Special...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Mohan Lal Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)464; [2006]281ITR384(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for opinion to this Court.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned I.T.A. was justified in holding that the penalty Under Section 271(c) was not leviable?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1987-88.3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:4. Assessee respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') is an individual and was doing proprietory business of purchase and sale of silver ornaments in the name of Mohan Lal Narendra Kumar. The original return was filed of 20.07.1987 disclosing the income of Rs. 36,890/- Income declared in the return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 15.09.1987. Just after the filing of the return a search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act at the business as well as residential premises of the assessee. During the cours...
Cit Vs. Asha Family Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN578(All)
ORDERP. Krishna, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi at the instance of the Income-tax department 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, Tribunal is right in holding that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to change the status while making the assessment under section 143(1) and in that background whether a change in the status is appealable to the first appellate authority'.2. The assessment year 1984-85 is involved in the present reference. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-The assessee-respondent had filed the income-tax returns and claimed the status as 'specified trust'. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment for all these years under section 143(1) of the Act. However, he while making the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act adopted the status as that of AOP a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)254; [2006]281ITR206(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) 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 was justified in allowing a deduction of Rs. 6,02,125 in the assessment year 1978-79 ?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The assessee is a corporation wholly owned by the U.P. Government established for the purposes of promoting small scale industries in the State. The Government of U.P. sanctioned certain amounts for different schemes, which were not connected with the assessee's business but for which the assessee's assistance was obtained by the Government. An amount of Rs. 17,93,000 was sanctioned vide Government order dated March 25, 1975, for certain schemes to be executed with the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »