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.
Vijay Shankar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2253
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these writ petitions raise similar questions and have been heard together.2. By these writ petitions, the advertisement dated 1st February, 2005 issued by the Additional Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation advertising 1500 posts of conductor for being filled up has been challenged. In Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 counter and supplementary counter affidavits, rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, in some other writ petitions also counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 is being treated as leading writ petition and it is sufficient to refer the pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions.3. The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions are in two categories. The first category of petitioners are those petitioners who were imparted apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 196...
NaraIn Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)176; [2005]278ITR516(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court relating to the assessment year 1997-98 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, M/s. Narain Automobiles was entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1997-98 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :3. The applicant/assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), was assessed in the status of a registered firm for the last several years but the first change in the constitution of the firm took place in the assessment year 1971-72 when one of the partners, namely, Vinod Narain, retired and in his place his two minor daughters, namely, Kum. Vineeta Narain and Kum. Smita Narain, were admitted to the partnership with equal shares of 12% per cent. The newly constituted firm continued till the accounting year relevant to the yea...
Satya Dev Tiwari and anr. Vs. Smt. Uma Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3401
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 24th May, 1999, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 23rd August, 2003, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the prescribed authority has allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlady, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. 'V' and 'VI', respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the prescribed authority against the petitioners, who are the tenant of the accommodation in question for the release of t...
Laxman Sav and ors. Vs. A.D.J., Court No. Vi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3724
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners challenge the order dated 30th November, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 69 of 2001 and the order dated 20th January, 2005, passed by the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2005, under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 14, respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlord of the accommodation in question and the petitioners, who are five in numbers, are the tenants in five shops in the building in which the landlords are residing in the rest of the portion of the building. The respondents-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after shall be referred to as 'the Act') before the prescribed authority for the release of the...
Dilip Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3399
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the contesting respondents- landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (herein-in-after referred to as 'the Act') before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord on the ground that the same is bona fide required by the landlord for personal use. The said release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record vide its order dated 30th April, 2004 have allowed the release application filed by the contesting respond...
Abdul Rashid and anr. Vs. Pyari Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC299
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 13.10.1993 passed by Shri R.S. Kashyap, then IV Addl. District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Misc. Case No. 9 of 1993 Abdul Rashid v. Smt. Pyari Devi.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 75 of 1989 against the opposite party repsondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 for recovery of Rs. 7,38,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties. It was alleged in that petition that Shesh Narain Singh, who was husband of the petitioner No. 1 Pyari Devi and father of petitioner No. 2 Awadesh Kumar Singh was coming on car No. UPX 4056 from Varanasi on 17.11.1988. The car was being driven very slowly and carefully. However, when the car reached near village Rathauna on G.T. Road Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi at about 12.30 mid night, truck No. UPW 3141 came from the side of Allahabad. It was owned by appellant No. 1 ...
Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary, Ministry of Railway and Chair ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC729
A.K. Yog and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Counsels representing the petitioner and the contesting-respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. Respondent No. 5/Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad through its Registrar, is a redundant non-contesting respondent. No notice need be given to said respondent.3. Considering the nature of the case, we proceed to decide this petition finally at the admission stage itself as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2(1), 11 proviso of Rules of Court, 1952. The issue of jurisdiction (as primarily issue) is to be adjudicated on the basis of undisputed facts on record.4. In brief, the facts are that Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Gorakhpur, issued advertisement No. 1/2000 in newspaper, original paper clipping of 'Dainik Jagran' dated 30.8.2000 placed before us for perusal. This advertisement shows that there are 25 posts of Inspector/Abhiyojan-Grade 11. It provided that application should be sent to Chief Sec...
Virendra Singh Vs. the Debt Recovery Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC268
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. M/s. Vishwa Polly Processors Pvt. Ltd. (in short hereinafter referred as the Company) was granted Cash Credit Hypothetication Limit (in short CC Limit) by the State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Kanpur for utilisation of fund during business transaction. When the said company failed to pay the dues, respondents' Bank sent a demand notice for the payment of dues but it could not be liquidated by the company. Feeling aggrieved a regular suit bearing No. 331 of 1997 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,89,578 plus interest. On promulgation of Recovery of Debt Dues to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short hereinafter referred as the Act), the suit was transferred to Debt recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, then to Allahabad.2. By judgment and order dated 6th September, 2002 the suit was decreed in favour of State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Kanpur for an amount of Rs. 29,89,578/-. In consequence thereof, a recovery certificate No. 299 dated 6.9.2002 w...
Gauri Shanker, Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3259
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated. 17.2.2005 (Annexure-31 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 /Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. There is further prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed not to proceed with the application (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) and proceedings on that application be dropped.3. Before I proceed to deal with the matter this has to come on the record that learned Advocate argued the matter for more than an hour inspite of indication that matter in issue is not such for which argument may stretch for such a long span. This was only with the purpose that we are already overburdened with large number of cases arising out of final order passed by the courts below which are pending since years and years and therefore, learned advocates are also to take care and they...
Umesh Chandra Son of Sonpal Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3391
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri S.L. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Babu Verma appearing for the respondents.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the consolidation operation the petitioner filed objection under Section 9 -A (2) of the Act claiming bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9.6.1972 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Ram Pyari the recorded tenure holder in his favour. The respondent No. 3 also filed objection claiming rights as legal heirs of smt. Ram Pyari.3. Smt. Ram Pyari who was recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute made an application on 9.6.1972 under Section 134 of the Act for grant of bhumidhari sanad and deposited ten times of the land revenue on the same day as required by the said Section. She also executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner on the same date i.e. 9.6.1972. Smt Ram Pyari died on 17.6.1972 whereas bhumidhari sanad was granted on 24.6.1972.4....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »