Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
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 ...
Farrukhabad GramIn Bank Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)366; [2005]277ITR320(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Farrukhabad Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, Sri S.R. Potdar, seeks the following reliefs :'A. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dt. 5th April, 2005 (collecting) marked as Annex. 6 to the writ petition, issued by respondent No. 1, under Section 226(3) of the Act.B. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Addl. CIT Range II Farrukhabad (respondent No. 1), to refund the amount of Rs. 94,14,605.70 to petitioner with interest.(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner for asst. yr. 2002-03 pending before him (Annex. 5) expeditiously, out of turn and if possible within one month.(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the CIT(A) Ghaziabad, to dispose of the stay ...
Shiv Kumar Akela, Advocate S/O Late R.D. Ram, Vs. the Registrar, Socie ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2864
ORDERA.K. Yog, J.1. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, impleaded as President and Secretary of High Court Bar Association, for short 'HCBA'. Respondent No. 2 at the outset of the hearing of the case raised, 'Preliminary Objection' regarding maintainability of the present Writ Petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, on two counts, namely;-(i) present Writ Petition can not be entertained as 'Public Interest Litigation' (PIL), and,(ii) 'High Court Bar Association, Allahabad' (HCBA), is a 'Society registered under Societies Registration Act, (whose 'Bye-laws'/Rules have no statutory force), and hence not amenable to High Court jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India.2. It is conspicuous to note that none of the other Respondents (viz. The Registrar, Societies Firms and Chits-under Societies Registration Act, 1860, Allahabad/Respondent No. 1, Uttar Pradesh Bar Council /Respondent No. 5, Bar Council of India through its Chairman, New Delhi/ Respondent No. 6, Advocate General, St...
Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Through Its Adm Medical Superintendent ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR277]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. This writ petition is directed against an award of the labour court dated 2nd. January, 1997 whereby the cessation of the services of the respondent employee have been held to be illegal and he has been directed to be reinstated with full backwages.4. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Security Incharge for a fixed period from 8.3.1988 to 8.3.1989. This period was extended uptil 31.3.1990, however, he stood disengaged w.e.f. 1.4.1990 and as such he approached the Conciliation Officer claiming violation of the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act). Upon submission of a failure report, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Allahabad which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 77 of 1994.5. The workman a...
Committee of Management Sarswati Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Sarswat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3858N
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This is an appeal from an interim order passed by an Hon'ble Judge in aid of a writ application filed by the respondents. The order is dated 20 June, 2005. The effect of the said order is to stay the recognition granted to the present committee of management and as a result thereof, where the impugned order to stand, the District Inspector of Schools would immediately take over the day to day management2. The learned Judge has remarked at the beginning of the order that respondent No. 2, one Smt. Maya Niranjan, appeared to fill two capacities, namely that of Deputy Director of Education as well as that of the Joint Director of Education. However the reason for passing of the drastic order of the- stay is not dearly the filling of two capacities by the same person, which may be unusual but is not in any manner illegal, at least not yet so pronounced even by the learned single Judge, His Lordship was deeply swayed by the fact that two caveat ap...
Mohd. Arif S/O Saleem Qureshi Vs. Mirza Glass Works Through Its Princi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR129]
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents that this special appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that writ petition was filed against an order passed by Prescribed Authority against the appellant under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.2. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court provides that special appeal shall not lie from a judgment of learned single Judge passed in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226/227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, or order or award of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator.. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is extracted below:-[5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being] an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or ...
United Provincial Transport Agency (Through Its Partner Sri S.P. Gulat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR495]
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 19.1.2004 published on 24.8.2004 contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition inter alia on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition.2. The relevant facts having material bearing with the question in controversy involved in the case are that the petitioner is transport agency (not transporter) in which goods are booked and are sent through trucks hired from transporters to different cities within the country as well as it receive goods from different transporters of the country and deliver it. The agency does not have any trucks/vehicles of its own and has a small office and a godown at Transport Nagar, Allahabad. The nature of business is such that the petitioner does not require more than two permanent employees in its establishment. The business of the petitioner being totally uncertain and is dependent upon the arrival of the truck loaded with goods booked to the agenc...
Tufani S/O Shri Rajendra Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3859F
Prakash Krishna, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners the challenged the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Collector, Azamgarh, revisional order dated 11.4.05 passed by the State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Excise Department and the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner (licensing).2. The petitioners, eight in number, were granted licenses to vend the country liquor in respect of the shops namely Husainabad-Nizambad, Gola-Chowk, Saraihazi, Khatri-Tola, Ajamatpur Kodar, Hafizpur Crossing, Saraimeer and Ramapur respectively for the excise year 2002-03. The licenses of these eight shops were renewed for the excise year 2003-04 and 2004-05 in view of the policy framed by the State Government. The State of U.P. framed Excise Rules namely the U.P. Excise (Settlement of License for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002. It has been stated in para 8 of the writ petition that the renewal fees for the renewal of license for ...
Ram Murti Tripathi Son of Late Sri Bechan Tripathi Vs. State Public Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR539]
Amitava Lala and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner contended that in respect of the order being passed by the Tribunal no effect or further effect has been given by the authority to such judgment and order.2. The operative part of the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 20.9.1993 is as follows:-' The claim petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed for consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of Extension Educator w.e.f. 10.5.67 or with effect from the date his junior have been so promoted with alt consequential benefits of salary, seniority etc. Costs is made easy.' 3. In this High court, the respondent authority has taken a plea that a new Act has come into force on 1.5.1996. If the ratio of AIR 1976 SC 2250( I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh) is valid, it will be seen that the Act is properly framed. 4. The important part of the Act is Sections 2 and 3 which shall be deemed to have come into force on 23.7.1981. Sections 4,5 and...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1010]
Amitava Lala and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. Upon going through the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 of the judgment in Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. 1993 (67) FLR 1230 (SC), we are of the view that the matter is to be remitted back to the Tribunal for considering the points once again before coming to the conclusion as to whether the punishment would be disproportionate or not and what would be the punishment and whether at all any punishment would be given.2. The attack of the writ petitioner is in two folds. Firstly, non-supply of preliminary report is not violation of principle of natural justice and secondly, factually when four witnesses went called to establish before the Enquiry Officer about the absenteeism of delinquent no violation of principles of natural justice is caused in the enquiry proceedings. Since the factum of second, point is factually based, as available from paragraph 5 of the enquiry report (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »