Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(2005)DMC855
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Razul Bhargawa, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. And Sri P.M. Diwedi learned counsel for the complainant.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case a F.I.R. Was lodged under Section 302 I.P.C. with the allegation that Smt. Sushila alias Mayawati, wife of the applicant was murdered on 26.2.2005 at about 6.00 P.M. Its F.I.R. Was lodged on 18.3.2005 about about 6.45 P.M. by father of the deceased in case Crime No. 63 of 2005 P.S. Kosi Kalan , District Mathura but the offence was converted under Section 306 I.P.C. during investigation.3. According to the prosecution version, the deceased was, beaten by the applicant and other co-accused persons and she was locked in a room. She was caught hold by the co-accused Kesharia, Mani Ram then accused Parshu Ram and Smt. Banso poured a Kerosene oil on the deceased and she was set on fire by the applicant. The deceased received any burn injuries. The applicant is h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(2005)DMC846
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.2. The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 245-C of 2005, P.S. Kotwali Dehat District Bijnor.3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the applicant is the husband of the injured Smt. Pallavi, whose marriage was solemnised with her on 25.11.2003. The injured was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused persons with a view to fulfil the demand of Pulsar Motor cycle and Rs. 50,0007- and there was a demand of some ornament of gold for the Jethani of the injured. The injured conveyed all these things to her father. The first informant and other persons tried to persuade the in-laws of the injured but they were not satisfied. The injured was subjected to cruelty continuously. The injured had written some letters to her father mentioning therein that she was subjected to cruelty to fulfil the demand of dowr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(All)44; [2006]280ITR547(All)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, 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 of this court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the gifts received by the applicant were not genuine and further that they fall under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act and were thus correctly added to the income of the assessee ?2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.3. The brief facts of the case as follows :The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 and during the course of assessment proceedings he noted that the assessee had declared a gift of Rs. 20,000 during the assessment year 1987-88 which was received from Shri Prem Narayan Singhal. The Assessing Officer further noted that a similar gift of Rs. 20,000 was received in the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC351
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree of trial court dated 1.6.1989 dismissing Suit No. 10/88-89 of petitioner for declaration of bhumidhari rights and judgment and decree of the first appellate court as well as second appellate court affirming judgment and decree of trial court.2. The property in dispute belonged to Bhojraj. After the death of Bhojraj petitioner instituted a Suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration of bhumidhari rights on the ground that Bhojraj, who died on 17.11.1976, had already executed a registered Will on 3.7.1976 in favour of plaintiff (petitioner herein). It was also averred in the plaint that as defendants-Naraini and Mulo Devi, daughters of Bhojraj, got their names entered in the revenue records on the basis of undisputed successions, hence the suit.3. Defendants (respondents-herein) denied plaint allegations and execution of Will relied upon by the plaintiff. They pleaded that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1325
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the State feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31st of January, 1981, passed by the Appellate Authority in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short referred as an Act) as well as the order dated 28th of February, 1979, passed by Prescribed Authority, copies of which have been filed as Annexures-5 and 4 to the writ petition.2. The short matrix of the case is that one Kunwar Bharat Singh was having two sons namely Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Raghunandan Singh. Arun Kumar Singh was the major son having 2 hectares of land in his own name. Sri Raghunandan Singh was alleged to be minor. By the order dated 30th of October, 1976, Sri Raghunandan Singh was declared major and his holding of two hectares of land was excluded from ceiling area. According to the arguments advanced on behalf of State since both the sons were having more than two acres of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3737
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.6.985 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Admin), Aligarh cancelling the allotment made in favour of petitioners. This judgment was affirmed by Additional Commissioner by judgment dated 7.10.86 and also by Board of Revenue by judgment dated 10.5.1994.2. The matter relates to allotment of land to petitioners.3. The Gram Pradhan and Up Pradhan are the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Land Management Committee and Sarpanch of the Nyay Panchayat is also Chairman of Nyay Panchayat. Petitioner No. 1 Bhagwati Prasad is son of Sarpanch of Nyay Panchyat. Petitioner No. 2 Moti Ram is son of Up Pradhan. The allotment was also made by impugned resolution in favour of Mahavir who is grandson of Ghasi Ram Pradhan, 4. Learned counsel for petitioners urged that there is no prohibition for making allotment by Gaon Panchayat even if petitioners are family members of Gram Pradhan, Up Pradhan or Nyay Panchayat. He fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All367; 2005(4)AWC3871G
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Deo Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5.2. The facts of the case in brief are that one late Mohd. Sadeeq Shah, who was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the remaining petitioners filed O.S No. 108 of 1983, Mohd. Sadeeq Shah v. Hameed Shah and Ors., in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor, for injunction, ejectment and damages against five persons, namely, Hameed Shah, father of the respondents No. 1 to 4, Niyaz Shah, Sadeeq Shah and Ibraheem Shah (all the three impleaded as defendants No. 2, 3 and 4). Sri Hameed Shah and Rasheed Shah defendants No. 1 and 5 filed their written statements, whereas defendants No. 2 to 4 did not file their written statement at all, hence the suit proceeded ex-parte and was decreed against them. The defendant No. 5 filed the written statement and supported the case of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]282ITR470(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 13,78,569 and Rs. 3,98,412 being expenditure incurred on scientific research and development?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow claim of Rs. 25,43,025 being interest on Government loan which was correctly disallowed by the Assessing Officer?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the expenses of Rs. 7,79,711 relating to earlier years claimed during the year under consideration was liable to be considered in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(All)195; [2008]296ITR516(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for opinion to this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that amendment of the IT Rules, 1962 as amended by CBDT's Notification SO 562(E), dt. 24th July, 1980 cannot be applied to the assessee's case in the assessment year in 1981-82, because the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question had already ended on 30th June, 1980 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A), who has confirmed allowance of depreciation on transport vehicles @ 30 per cent ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1981-82.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The applicant-assessee is a limited company and it runs transport vehicles on hire, The accounting period re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3445
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. These three scheduled caste ladies, two being widows, have filed this petition challenging a laconic order dated 10.11,2000 passed by the Board of Revenue. Anang Pal Singh son of Shiv Nath Singh was the original recorded tenure holder of plot No. 272 having an area of 2 bighas 15 biswas. In proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, the aforesaid disputed land was declared to be surplus on 10.10.1975 and after its possession was taken, it vested in the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha allotted the disputed land in favour of the petitioners, who are landless Scheduled caste persons. In the year 1979, at the time of delivery of possession to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 instituted a title Suit No. 93 of 1979 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Lan...
Tag this Judgment!