Allahabad Court May 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.
Satendra Kumar Sharma Son of Late Tej Pal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2091
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.05.2000, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and also the order dated 10.01.2002, whereby the appeal against the order of dismissal has also been dismissed.2. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Sub Inspector, Civil Police at the relevant time, was posted at Mathura. By order of the DIG Kanpur Zone, dated 29.04.1999 the petitioner was transferred from Mathura to Etawah. According to the petitioner, he was relieved on 11.05.1999, whereas according to the department he was relieved on 05.05.1999. Whatever the case may be, the petitioner was to join within one week from the date he was relieved. After being relieved from Mathura the petitioner did not join at Etawah and remained absent without any intimation or notice to the department. The respondents, after giving warning and notice to the petitioner suspended him vide order dated 23.02.2000. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued to the pe...
Ram Naresh Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1952
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 19/20.12.2003 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow (respondent No. 2), whereby exercising the powers conferred under Regulation 63(1) of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971 (in short referred to as 1971 Regulations) a penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner on the ground of conviction in criminal case.2. I have heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.3. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1991 by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow vide judgment dated 23.5.2003 consequent to which the impugned order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow being Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2003 in which an order dated 27.5.2003 ...
Smt. Amarwati and ors. Vs. Xith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3143
Vikram Nath, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the defendants for quashing the order dated 7.2.1990 passed by Xlth Additional District Judge, Moradabad (respondent No. 1) in Civil Revision No. 92 of 1985 and Civil Revision No. 93 of 1985, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff revisionist (respondent No. 2) for admitting the additional evidence has been allowed and the objections of the petitioners have been rejected.2. The dispute relates to the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint of Suit No. 129 of 1984, Smt. Ramawati v. Amrawati and Ors., by which Smt. Ramawati claims herself to be the owner and landlord and the petitioners as tenants. The suit was filed with the allegation that property in dispute was owned by Sri Jagdish Kumar and upon his death it was inherited by his widow Smt. Surendra Bala and his mother, Smt. Genda Kunwar. Earlier Smt. Surendra Bala had filed a suit against Smt. Genda Kunwar for her eviction and for declaration, which was...
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Iiird A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3404
Vikram Nath, J.1. Writ Petition No. 41143 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 42141 of 1998 have been filed by the tenants for quashing of the judgment and order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the prescribed authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Etah and the judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Etah, whereby the application for release of the premises in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) filed by respondent No. 3 Someshwar Prasad Goswami was allowed and the appeal against the same under Section 22 of the Act was dismissed.2. Writ Petition No. 38949 of 1997 has been filed by unauthorised occupant against the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Etah, dated 24.10.1997, whereby vacancy was declared in the premises in dispute under Section 12 of the Act.3. Since in all three cases the initial proceedings were taken under Section 21(1)(a...
Ajai Kumar and ors. Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3728
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1994, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the Revision No. 74 of 1987 filed by the tenant was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court only for deciding afresh the issue relating to service of notice and the finding on the other issues recorded by the trial court with regard to default in payment of rent and with regard to sub-tenancy were affirmed.2. Petitioners are the owner and landlord of premises No. 99/12, Civil Lines, Lalitpur, of which opposite party No. 1, Munna Lal was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 30 per month. It is alleged that Munna Lal sublet the premises in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2 Sewa Ram. On the ground of default as well as subletting, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, after giving notice as contemplated under law. This was registered as Suit No. 24 of 1981 in the Court of the Judge, Small...
Mahendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Xviith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3876
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 4.4.1995 and 24.12.1991, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the application of the landlord respondent No. 3 for release of the premises in dispute under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the appeal against the same has been dismissed.2. The dispute relates to shop No. 16 situate in Ward No. 3 Railway Road, Kasba Agrawal Mandi Tatiry Pargana Tahsil Bagpath, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as shop In dispute). Undisputedly the respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and petitioner is a tenant. The respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the shop in dispute setting up a need that his son Jagmohan and daughter-in-law Smt. Manju (wife of Jagmohan) are unemployed and therefore, need the shop in dispute for setting up a...
Vinod Kumar Dixit Vs. A.D.J. (Viiith) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3870L
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and orders dated 4.1.1994, 29.1.1994 and 6.11.2000, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2) and Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the premises in dispute was declared vacant and subsequently allotted in favour of Udai Pratap Singh (respondent No. 3) and the revision against the same filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The dispute relates to premises No. 125/73 K Block Govind Nagar Kanpur Nagar of which petitioner is the owner and landlord. One Sri Umesh Rai was tenant of the ground floor portion of the premises in dispute under an order of allotment. Sri Umesh Rai subsequently shifted to Delhi and as such an application was moved by Udai Pratap Singh (respondent No. 3) for allotment under Section 16 to Rent Control Eviction Officer on the ground that as Umesh Rai had already shifted to Delhi and was not residing in the premises in dispute therefore, the...
Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1123
Vikram Nath, J. 1. This writ petition filed by the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.1987, 20.4.1987 and 10.12.1985, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the application of the landlady for declaration of vacancy and subsequent release in her favour has been dismissed.2. The dispute relates to two rooms situated on the ground floor of house No. 109/357, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur of which the petitioner is the landlady and one Radhey Shyam Sonkar was the tenant of the aforesaid disputed accommodation. It is alleged that the family of Radhey Shyam consisted of himself his wife Smt. Shitla Devi and five sons and two daughters namely Nand Lal, Jaswant, Sri Krishna, Balwant, Suraj, Urmila and Km. Manno. Radhey Shyam Sonkar acquired vacant accommodation comprising of 107/3, Dwarikapuri Bazar, Kanpur, further his son Nand Lal purchased House No. 107A/6 Chandra Nagar, Kanpur in the name of his wife Smt. Saroj. It was further alleged that Radhey Shyam acquired ...
Smt. Vidyawati Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1105
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the landlady for quashing the judgment and order dated 30.8.1982 and 12.7.1972, passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the ground floor portion has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 and the appeal against the same has been dismissed.2. The dispute relates to part of House No. 87/88, Kishanpuri, Meerut of which the petitioner is the landlady. It is a double storey building. The petitioner is residing with other family members on the first floor of the building and using it for residential purpose. On the ground floor initially there was a school run by the Municipal Board, Meerut. The Municipal Board vacated the premises in the year 1972 and, thereafter, by order dated 12.7.1972, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises of the ground floor portion in favour of respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, the order of allotment dated 12.7.1972 was ex parte, however, when the petitioner l...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ram Memorial Education Promotion So ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR155(All)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri D. D. Chopra and perused the record.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Department on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, was correct in holding that provisions of Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will be attracted only if the tax has been deducted ?2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that since the tax has not been deducted, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, penalty is not leviable without appreciating the fact that Sections 192 and 206 read with Rule 36 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 are interlinked ?3. Sri D. D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that non-deduction of tax at source...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »