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.
Shishant Agarwal Vs. Krishna Kumar Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2460
O.N. Khandelwal, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 104 read with Order XXI, Rule 103, C.P.C. challenging the order dated 11.10.2002, passed by the IVth A.D.J., Agra in Execution Case No. 1 of 1976. The respondent decree holders have appeared and raised preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable.2. Raj Narain, the grand father of the appellant was the owner of property No. 4/157 Belanganj, Agra, in respect of which he executed a registered document on 17.4.1954, by way of family settlement and created a trust in respect of his 1/5 share in favour of his wife and three minor sons (namely Kishan Chand, Bishan Chand and Mahesh Chand). The trust was to be managed by his wife and such of his sons who attained majority from time to time. It was further provided that after all his sons attained majority, they may nominate anyone of themselves as trustee. The remaining 4/5 share of the property belonged to the wife and his three minor sons. But the sons (after attain...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Xiiith, A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2840
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. The tenants have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 14.9.1982 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the prescribed authority dated 21.8.1979 and allowed the application for release of the disputed shop No. 43/213 Meston Road, Kanpur.2. Admittedly, Rajendra Kumar Jain, husband of respondent No. 2 was landlord of the shop No. 43/213 situate on the ground floor of Meston Road, Kanpur and Ram Swaroop Agrawal, father of the petitioner No. 1 was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 106.25 P. It. is further admitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are sons of late Rajendra Kumar Jain and were the applicants in the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The family of the landlord consisted of s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Sales and Service Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR203(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 the assessment year 1982-83 for opinion to this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 59,271 paid as incentive bonus was allowable expenditure 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :3. The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a company. In its profit and loss account the assessee claimed incentive bonus amounting to Rs. 59,271 as business expenditure to meet out the business expediency. The assessing authority noticed that the assessee had already paid a sum of Rs. 74,343 by way of bonus to its employees which was calculated at 20 per cent, of the salary and in addition to that bonus a sum of Rs. 59,271 was paid to the employees by way of incentive bonus. The assessi...
Prabhu Dayal Son of Shri Dulley Ram Vs. Bharat Heavey Electricals Limi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR949]; (2005)2UPLBEC1448
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has undergone apprenticeship training in production with the respondent-Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 22.11.1986 to 24.11.1987. On that basis the petitioner claims that he has been a certificate of having completed apprenticeship training in the year 1987. On 4.2.2005 an advertisement was issued for filling up certain posts of Mechanical, Electrical and Civil Supervisors. The petitioner claims that since he has already undergone apprenticeship training, he ought to be appointed on the vacant posts of Mechanical Supervisor. The petitioner had applied for such appointment in pursuance of the said advertisement and his application has been rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria i.e. he had not securec the requisite minimum percentage of marks in each subject. He has thus...
Abhay Nandan Tripathi Son of Late Ram Bujharat Tripathi, Presently Pos ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1026]; (2005)2UPLBEC1909
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ram Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By the impugned order dated 18.3.2005, the petitioner has been suspended, pending disciplinary enquiry being initiated against him under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to us the Rules). 3. Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the suspension order has been passed by the authority concerned on the dictates of the State Government and that he did not independently exercised his discretion. The disciplinary authority mechanically and without applying its mind has passed the impugned suspension order. The learned counsel further submitted that the suspension order has also been passed on the basis of a complaint made by a person and therefore the petitioner ought to have been given a notice prior to the issuance of the s...
Budhaee Son of Shri Piyarey Vs. Collector,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2447
S.U. Khan, J.1. By order dated 3.1.2005 passed in this writ petition it was observed that as pure question of law was involved in the writ petition hence there was no need to call for counter affidavit on behalf of State and Gaon Sabha who are the only respondents in this writ petition. Through the said order the case was directed to be listed on 10.1.2005 for hearing. Thereafter the case was heard on 18.1.2005 and judgment was reserved. Neither on 3.1.2005 nor on 18.1.2005, learned counsel for respondents requested for opportunity to file counter affidavit. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act initiated by Gaon Sabha Sanwat Tehsil Khaga District Fatehpur against Budhai, the petitioner before Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Khaga District fatehpur in the form of case No. 3780 of 2002. The allegation against the petitioner was that petitioner had encroached upon Gaon Sabha land comprised in plot No. 719 area .006 hectares (i.e. 55 to 6...
Ramesh Chandra Saroj Son of Sri Mool Sajiwan Saroj Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2066; (2005)2UPLBEC1682
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Surya Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Singh, Additional Standing counsel for Central Reserve Police Force.2. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable (GD), in Central Reserve Police force (CRPF)on 1.4.2003. The verification roll in paragraph 12(a) required the petitioner to inform the respondent authorities, as to whether he has ever been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention etc. Para 12(a) and (b) of the Verification Roll is quoted as below:'(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/ disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination, selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution.(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the ...
Obedullah Son of Late Shri Hafiz Rahat Ali Vs. State of U.P., Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2191
S.U. Khan, J.1. The sale deed which has been impounded through impugned order was executed on 13.12.02 through which an area of .29 acres ( 1174.79 sq. m.) was purchased by the petitioner. In the sale deed market value of the land was shown to be Rs. 95000/- (at the rate of Rs. 8,00,000/- per hectare) and requisite stamp was affixed.. At the time of the sale land was entered as agricultural and in the revenue record. Through impugned orders it has been held that the land has got abadi potential, as the area of the land is small hence it must be valued at Rs. 1500/- per sq. meter. In the relevant circle rate as determined and circulated in accordance with Rule 4 of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition under Column No. 3 the rate of agricultural land situate in the area in question situate on the road was shown to be Rs. 8,00,000/- per hectare. In Annexure 6 under column 8 rate of agricultural land situate in the area in question...
Smt. Sobhawati Shukla and anr. Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2032
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri B.S. Pandey and Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K. Sahi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.2. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 15.4.2000, 17.4.2000, 19.4.2000 and 22.4.2000 respectively, passed by respondents, whereby services of the petitioners have been treated to have been terminated with effect from the date of the passing of the initial order's dated 3.8.1995 and 31.7.1995 respectively.3. The facts, in brief, for the purpose of the present controversy are that the services of the two petitioners, who are the Head Mistress (petitioner No. 1) and Assistant Teacher (petitioner No. 2) respectively of a Primary School established and managed by respondent No. 2, were terminated by orders dated 3.8.1995 and 31.7.1995 respectively.4. The petitioners filed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meerut Cement Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)506
ORDER1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for opinion to this Court relating to asst. yr. 1985-86:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,719 on account of difference in the cost of construction as added by the AO under Section 69B of the IT Act?2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present case are that during the relevant previous year, assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') completed its factory building and disclosed the cost thereof at Rs. 5,38,350 in its books of account. Cost of construction shown by the assessee was also supported by the report of registered valuer. Assessing authority further made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Cell who worked out the cost of construction at Rs. 8,49,069. Assessee raised objections against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »