Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006(107)FLR128]
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court on 22.3.2001 in writ petition No. 10418 of 2001, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. has rejected petitioner's application for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974( In short, The Rules of 1974), on the ground that the Government Order dated 9.12.1998, excludes the compassionate appointments to the dependants of those government servants who have gone missing.3. In the present case, the petitioner's father was serving as Constable in Civil Police. While posted at Allahabad, he went missing on 14.11.1990, and it is alleged by this family that he has not been heard of, since then. The department has sanctioned payment of gratuity and family pension to his dependants.4. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating that his father was born...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]148STC477(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision arises out of proceedings under Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1986-87. The dealer opp. party deals in the manufacture of automobiles toughened safety glass parts including wind screen, doors screen, side screen and back screen etc. The application for grant of recognition certificate under Section 4-B (_) -(_} was filed in respect of notified goods mentioned in annexure-3 of the notification No. 7551 dated 31st of December, 1976. The Assessing Authority by the order dated 22.12.1987 granted recognition certificate with respect of 'Automobile Safety Toughened Glass' whereby the dealer opp. party was authorized to purchase raw material and packing material at the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent.2. The dealer opp. party felt aggrieved by this order as total exemption of sales tax on the purchases of raw material and packing material was not granted. An appeal under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All349; 2005(4)AWC3871M
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Audichya Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri G.C. Saxena Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Standing Counsel, on behalf of. respondent No. 3.2. One Sri Jitendra Pal Singh expired on 24th March, 2001. Smt. Beena Singh (respondent No. 1) claiming herself to be the wife of the said deceased, filed an application for issuance of succession certificate in respect of the amount due to Sri Jitendra Pal Singh towards pay, gratuity, insurance etc. before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad. The application so filed was registered as Misc. Case No 75 of 2001.3. The application was allowed under order of the Court dated 26.4.2001. In the said application, the petitioner namely Smt Jai Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, was not impleaded as one of the defendants. Therefore, on coming to know about the order dated 26.4.2001, passed by the Civil Judge, the mother (petitioner) filed an application for recall of the said order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3859-O
Sanjay Misra, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1977 passed by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1976 between Babu Ram (Plaintiff) and Prem Raj and Ors. (defendants). By an order dated. 19.7.1982 this court dismissed the appeal against the respondent No. 2 for non- prosecution. The relief sought in this appeal is that judgment and decree of the courts below may be set aside and the plaintiffs suit be dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants No. 1 to 4 from interfering in the plaintiffs possession over plot No. 356 situate in village Akhlabad, Tahsil Behuri district Bareilly. The plaintiff's case was that he was bhumidhar of plot No. 356 having an area of 2 biswas 9 biswas. it is the case of the plaintiff that the neighboring plot No. 354 having an area of 1 bigha 8 biswas had been purchased by defendants No. 1 to 4 from defendant No. 5. The said p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3672
S.U. Khan, J.1. Suresh Chandra Sahu and Dinesh Chandra Sahu respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against petitioner claiming therein that they were the landlords and the petitioner was their tenant who had defaulted in payment of rent. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1984 on the file of J.S.C.C./Civil Judge, Fatehpur. The suit was decreed ex parte on 20.7.1984. After four days, i.e., on 24.7.1984, petitioner filed restoration application, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the restoration application it was stated that service of summons of suit was never effected upon the petitioner and it was wrongly shown that he refused to accept the summons sent through registered post. It was also stated in the restoration application that previously Smt. Mithana Devi was the owner landlord of the house in dispute who agreed to sell the same to the tenant petitioner for Rs. 8,000 on 16.2.1976 and executed agreement for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3741
S.U. Khan, J.1. Original owner landlord Raman Lal alias Kishan Chand since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit for eviction against petitioner which is pending in the form of Original Suit No. 284 of 1978, Rarnan Lal v. Dido Ram, before regular civil court, i.e., Munsif, Bisauli. In the plaint it was alleged that defendant petitioner was tenant of the eastern portion and he had encroached upon the western portion. Relief of dispossession was sought from both the portions. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the western portion was vacated and its possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter an objection was raised that after vacation of the encroached portion defendant remained in occupation of tenanted portion only and suit for eviction of tenant was maintainable only before J.S.C.C. and not before regular civil court hence suit must be dismissed. The said plea was rejected by the trial court/Murisif Bisauli, district Budaun on 20.3.1987. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008]296ITR523(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in placing reliance upon the statements of karkhanadars in a situation when the assessee had not been provided with full copies of statements prior to the cross-examination (when no such prayer was made before the Income-tax Officer), particularly, when the assertions in the statements were based only on memory and coming to the conclusion that there had been inflation in purchases and maintaining addition of Rs. 1,11,813 in the trading account, on this count?2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The applicant is engaged in the business of export of brassware. A number of defects in the maintenance of account books w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All351; 2005(4)AWC3858-O; II(2007)BC561; [2006]130CompCas438(All)
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Sashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Jauhari, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. The Bank of Baroda, Fatehpur Main. Branch though its Branch Manager (respondent No. 2), which is a banking company duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acqisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act, 1970, filed a civil suit in the Judgeship of Fatehpur in the year 1995 for a money decree of Rs. 28,41,263/-, against the principal-borrower,Sri Guru Bachan Singh as well as against the guarantor Sri Prern Jeet Singh Gujral. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 84 of 1995. During the pendency of the said suit proceedings, a Tribunal was constituted under Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act) at Jabalpur Accordingly the proceedings were transferred to the said Tribunal at Jabalpur. However, a Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3859E
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the order dated 13th December, 2004, passed by the appellate court, whereby the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9th August, 1995, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court by which the trial court has allowed the claim of the petitioner-landlord in part.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-landlord, petitioner in this writ petition, filed a suit against the respondent-defendant, who is tenant of the accommodation in dispute after terminating his tenancy from the accommodation in dispute for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. At the time of the disposal of the case, the suit filed by the petitioner was transferred to the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, who after hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008]296ITR510(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of work-in-progress was to be taken at the cost of raw material consumed and no part of direct labour, overheads was allocable to it and that the ratio laid down in CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. : [1991]188ITR44(SC) did not apply to the case?2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1986-87.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On facts, the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing of electronic induction heating equipment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had admittedly been manufacturing goods which were tailor-made for the specific requirements of its customers and unless the whole of the machinery was complete, the work-in-progress ...
Tag this Judgment!