Allahabad Court June 2005 Judgments
Kusum Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)608; [2008]296ITR242(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for opinion to this Court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment made in contravention of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the witness relied upon having not been provided to the assessee for cross-examination is valid in law ?The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The applicant, a private limited company, derived income from running of rolling mill. It had the calendar year as its previous year. On 5th June, 1958, it had taken over a running concern M/s Jagdish Rolling Mills. Its original assessment for the asst. yr. 1959-60 was completed on a loss and assessments for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62 on nominal incomes. In a search and seizure operation conducted by the IT Department at the r...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar Chopra Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3191
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant, who is aggrieved by the order dated 21st August, 2002, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 220 of 1992 and the order dated 25th February, 2003, passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 70 of 2002, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are as under :That the premises in question was let out to petitioner's father, Sri Girdhari Lal Chopra, in the year 1950. Sri Girdhari Lal Chopra, father of the petitioner, died in the month of October, 1986, leaving behind the petitioner -- Virendra Kumar Chopra, Vijay Chopra and Rajeev Chopra, All the three sons of late Girdhari Lal Chopra, according to the petitioner, succeeded the tenancy of late Girdhari Lal Chopra. The respondent-landlord served a notice dated 29th January, 1991 to the petitioner for payment of arrears of rent as the tenant is in default ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Kuladhapati, Narendra Dev Un ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2129
A.P. Sahi, J.1. These writ petitions question the action of His Excellency the Governor as Chancellor of 6 Universities whereby these Universities have been restrained from running the distance education course and awarding degrees by attempting off campus education in various courses which are described in the brochure of the Universities which have either been brought on record in these writ petitions or have been produced before this Court. The directions issued by the Chancellor as a consequence upon the aforesaid restraint order including the return of fee already realised by the Universities and the Education Centres have also been challenged. '2. There are 2 sets of petitioners before this Court, one in which the students have come up against the orders and the second set in which the collaborator/co-ordinator/facilitator of the study centres have challenged the impugned order passed by the Chancellor. Three of these writ petitions .are in respect of the Universities governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shaheen Ara Begum Vs. Viith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3734
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed by the allottee for quashing the order dated 26.4.2001, passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge (Court No. 7) Bareilly passed in Rent Control Revision No. 136 of 1988, Kaleem Ullah Khan v. State of U. P. and Ors., whereby the said revision has been allowed and the order of allotment dated 9.9.1988, passed in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, has been quashed.2. The dispute relates to ground floor portion of house No. 2 Mohalla Aqab Kotwali Gali Maniharan, Bareilly. It. is alleged that the said house belong to waqf alul-aulad and Smt. Rais Begum was its mutwalli. The premises having fallen vacant the petitioner applied for allotment of the same, which was registered as Case No. 28 of 1986 in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly. After inviting objections and affording opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 9.9.1988...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi)through General Manager, North Eastern Railway and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR182]
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur dated 26.7.2002 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated 20.8.2002, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in adjudication case No. 182/1991 which was between Sri Mohd. Fahim and Union of India and Anr.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of question in controversy involved in the case in brief are that the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification dated 31.10.1991 has referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act 1947). The opposite party No. 2 filed his claim through the union on the ground that he had worked from 15.2.1980 to 25.4.1981 and 9.5.1983 to 263 1984 and subsequently had worke...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Shukla Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Prade ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2073
A.P. Sahi, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the order of transfer, transferring the petitioners from their respective posts, from one Development Authority to another and since the issues involved in these 6 writ petitions are almost common with a slight distinction in 2 of them as would be explained hereinafter, these writ petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. I have heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the petitioners in 5 writ petitions and Sri Vikas Budhwar for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 45320 of 2005 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State and Sri A.K. Mishra and Sri H.R. Misra respective counsel for the Development Authorities.3. The impugned orders dated 15.5.2005 and 6.6.2005 are under challenge in Writ Petition No. 45481 of 2005, 45320 of 2005, 45310 of 2005 and 45304 of 2005. The petitioners in these 4 writ petitions are Junior Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Omwati and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3239
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Om Wati widow of Late Anoop Kumar and her children approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11th April, 2005, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy in the accommodation in question under the provisions of the U.P Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Aggrieved by the order dated llth April, 2005, the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court/District Judge. The revisional court vide order dated 7th May, 2005 has held that since the order under challenge by means of revision is neither an order under Section 16, nor under Section 19 of 'the Act', therefore revision is dismissed summarily as not maintainable.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners' case was that her husband, namely. Anoop Kumar inherited the tenancy from his father, namely, Triloki Nath, who was the ori...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3331
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 22nd October, 2002, passed by the City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'IX' to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Gomti Devi, respondent-landlord of the accommodation in question house No. 62/172A, Harbans Mohal, Kanpur Nagar filed an application on llth September, 2001 under Section 21(1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the effect that the accommodation in question is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner. On the aforesaid application, a report was sought for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from the Inspector concerned, who submitted his report and thereafter notices were issued to the parties to file their objections, if any. The petitioner's case, as is clear from the material on re...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Rastogi Vs. Yogeshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3225
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court dated 21st April, 2005, whereby application paper No. 23C filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment has been rejected, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit being S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 1999 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that petitioner is tenant of part of house No. 2A, Sarai Khuldabad, Allahabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 but since the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent since 1st January 1993, his tenancy was terminated by the notice dated 15th March, 1999, which was served upon the tenant on 19th March, 1999. It is further submitted that when the petitioner failed to pay the rent despite service of the aforesaid notice, the suit for evi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Gupta Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3299
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who is the tenant of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, against the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-3 and 8, respectively, to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is tenant of two shops in the building in dispute of which admittedly the respondents 3 to 10 are the landlords. The landlord, namely, Bhagwan Din filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act',) for release of the aforesaid shops with the prayer that the shops in possession and occupation of tenant-petitioner may be released in his favour, as he requires the shops in dispute to settle down his unemployed sons. During the pendency of the aforesaid relea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »