Allahabad Court August 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.
Kailash and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC497
Amitava Lala, J.1. The impugned land of the writ petitioners is, according to the respondent authority, surplus in nature and had been taken by the authority as per Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Such Act was repealed by virtue of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. State of Uttar Pradesh adopted the repealing Act of the Central Government. Therefore, the repealing Act is applicable in the State with full force.2. The bone of contention of the petitioners' argument is that the authority had not taken the actual physical possession of the land in question, therefore, the possession cannot be kept by the State Authority after the repealing Act being enforced in the State. The writ petition was filed after the repealing Act came into force.3. Therefore, the moot point is whether the words actual physical possession are contemplated under the prevailing law or not.4. According to us, there is no such bearing under the la...
Fashion Carpet Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN296(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 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 to this court for the assessment year 1981-82.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the commission payments made to the Handicrafts & Handloom Export Corporation of India (HHEC) are not entitled to weighted deduction under sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The assessee was a manufacturer and exporter of hand-knotted carpets. The assessee had paid commission to the Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India Ltd. ('HHEC') and claimed weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(a) & (b) of the Act. HHEC is alleged to be a subsidiary of the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ('STC') under the ...
Jai Prakash Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature through Its Registrar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2747
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri D.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 8.1.1997, by which he was dismissed from the service by the District Judge, Gonda 'and the order passed by the appellate authority.3. The petitioner was working as Process Server in District Judgeship, Gonda. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the District Judge, Gonda after issuing a charge-sheet containing two charges. The first charge against him was that during the period from 12.9.1994 to 23.12.1995, he did not paste the acknowledgement slips on the Register No. 105 received from the Nazarat for service. He was guilty of dereliction of duty. The second charge was that when he was called upon to submit his explanation by Office Incharge, Nazarat and the Central Nazir on 7.1.1995, the petitioner did not submit any reply and thereby he was guilty of indiscipline.4. T...
Cit Vs. Yatindra and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN281(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 'for opinion to this court for the assessment year 1979-80.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in holding that no income has accrued to the assessee on account of decretal amount?2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,043 by holding that the receipt of the decretal amount could not be said to be revenue receipt and assessable in the year under consideration till the finality of the litigation?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The assessee-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is an exporter and assessed to tax in the status of registered firm and followed mercantile system of account...
Girish Chandra Gupta and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC711
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are tenants of the accommodation in question, have challenged the order dated 19th May, 2001, passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 119 of 1999, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondents-landlord against the order dated 30th March, 1999, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents-landlord.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondents-landlord filed a suit being S.C.C. Suit No. 618 of 1993 before the trial court for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenants-petitioners on the ground that the tenants are in arrears of rent for more than four months and further that the tenants have made structural changes in the accommodation in question. The landlord the...
Archana Goel Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC686
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions since raise common question of facts and law, therefore, they are heard together and decided by common judgment with the consent of the parties.2. It is not disputed that the petitioners filed two writ petitions before this Court one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004, Archana Goel v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and another and second being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004, Suresh Chandra Goel v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and another.3. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under :That the respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant being S.C.C. Suit No. 99 of 1994 which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004 and S.C.C. Suit No. 100 of 1994 which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004. In the written statements filed in both the suits, no plea of payment of puggrie (premium) or security money was taken. However, by way of amendment which was a...
Mushahid Beg and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1330
N.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. The petitioners of all these three writ petitions were initially appointed as Tubewell Operators in the Irrigation Department, After the 73rd amendment in the Constitution of India, the State Government issued an order on 12.4.1999 in order to implement the scheme of decentralization of powers wherein the work of several department of the State Government namely Primary Education, Anaupcharik Shiksha, Government Tubewell, Rural Water Supply, Medical Health and Family Planning, Veterinary Medical Services, Youth Welfare and Social Welfare, Women Welfare and Child Development, Cane Land Development and Water Resources, Agriculture, Food, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department were given under the complete control of Gram Panchayats. The Tubewell Operators, Seenchpal (Tubewell) and Seenchpal (Canal) were appointed on the post of multipurpose employee by way of transfer of their services from the Irrigation Department of the State Government and the petitioners...
Ramesh and anr. Vs. Iiird Addl. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC60
S.U. Khan, J.1. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Bhagwan Devi filed (original suit) Suit No. 424 of 79 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Ramesh and Prem who are son and father. The suit was filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act according to which a person can sue for possession only and only on the basis of prior possession without any proof of title. In the suit the case of the plaintiff was that she was tenant of the shop in dispute, that landlord had filed suit for eviction against her which was decreed but revision was filed by the plaintiff and in the revision compromise was entered into in between her, landlord and another person Laxman Prasad who was rival claimant to the landlordship, however, the said compromise even though filed before the revisional court was not verified until filing of the Suit No. 424 of 79. In the said plaint it was further alleged that the plaintiff had gone to Bombay hence she employed the petitioner No. 1 as her servant to look after the shop in her absence...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indrasani Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC290; 2007ACJ1192
Yatindra Singh and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. Brahmanand Ram was a police constable and Panna Lal Saroj was the Sub Inspector. They were going on a motor cycle on 8.2.1994 in the night. They were struck by a truck and in this accident Brahmanand Ram died. His widow and children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which was allowed on 16.9.1998, hence the present appeal by the insurance company.2. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Neelambar Tripathi holding the brief of Mr. N.K. Chatterjee learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Verma, learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents.3. Learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that no permission was granted to the insurance company under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and as such the appeal is not maintainable.4. In this case neither the owner of the truck nor the driver of the truck appeared before the court. It was a fit case in which the Tribunal below ought to have granted permission to c...
Smt. Shabana Vs. Addl. City Magistrate (Sixth) Kanpur Nagar/Rent Contr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC713
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Mohd. Idris landlord respondent No. 2 filed release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) in respect of house No. 184C Chandari, Kanpur. In the release application it was stated that Shamim Hussain (or Shamim Ahmad), the tenant had illegally handed over the possession of the tenanted property in dispute to Javed Ashrad hence it was vacant under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act and that landlord Mohd. Idris required said house bona fidely for his personal use. Petitioner Smt. Shabana is wife of Jafar or (Zafar) Ahmad who is real brother of Javed Ashraf.2. During the proceedings it was further stated on behalf of landlord-respondent No. 2 that Smt. Shabana the petitioner was residing in another house of the same locality bearing No. 188. She is daughter of Shamim Husain.3. It is not disputed that initially Abid Hussain grandfather of Smt. Shabana, i.e., father of Shri Shamim Ahmad was tenant of the house in dispute.4. Petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »