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.
Ram Pyare Tiwari Son of Parmeshwar Tiwari Vs. First Additional Civil J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR607(All); 2006(1)AWC714
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against an appellate order dated 26.5.1987 by which an application of the contesting respondents for stayingthe proceedings in the suit and referring the dispute for arbitration under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act has been allowed.3. Itappears that the petitioner filed a suit No. 307 of 1982 claiming that the contesting respondents may be directed to submit the accounts of the businessof the partnership and also of the properties of the family and pay the same in case the plaintiff is entitled to any money. The details of the propertyhas been disclosed in the plaint itself along with the details of the business carried on. All the defendants except the respondent No. 2 filed their writtenstatement. The respondent No. 2 twice made application for extension of time for enabling him to file a written statement but instead of filing the writtenstatement, he made an application under Section ...
The Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All186; 2006(1)AWC593
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari, in his Lordship's order dated 20.5.2003. In the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant, who, in reality is Mantri, Vijai Bahadur Yadava deseriting(sic) himself the Manager of the Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyaon, challenged the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 25.5.2000, whereby he recalled the earlier grant of renewal of the certificate of the Soceity made by him on 24.3.1999. The disputes arose before him since the group of Birendra Kumar Shukla and others raised the point that Yadava was not entitled to obtain the renewal of the grant on behalf of the Soceity, as he was not an office bearer and in a hopeless minority.2. The learned Assistant Registrar's finding is on record and from one portion (see page 83 of the paper book before us), it may be seen that all fou...
Vinod Kumar Pandey Son of Sri JahIn NaraIn Pandey and ors. Vs. State o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC65
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed as Tubewell Operators in the Irrigation department of the State of U.P. Subsequently, their services were transferred to different Gram Panchayats and are presently working as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The controversy involved, starts from the year 1994, when Article 243G was inserted in the Constitution of India, which gave powers, authority and responsibility to the Gram Panchayat. For facility. Article 243G of the Constitution is quoted hereunder:'Article 243G. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayat with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers land responsibilities upon Panchayat at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to - [a] the preparat...
Ram Babu S/O Gokul Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through Home Secretary,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR806]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the departmental enquiry proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that on similar charges a criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and, on the same charges, a domestic enquiry has been initiated. Consequently, the departmental enquiry proceedings should be stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that two enquiries on the same charges could not proceed simultaneously and, therefore the domestic enquiry proceedings should be quashed.3. The Supreme Court in number of decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, : (1960)ILLJ520SC , Kushewar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr, : (1988)IILLJ470SC , Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., 1999 [82] FLR 627 and in State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, 2004 LLR 950 have held that the proceeding...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investmen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)413
Rajes Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, 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') relating to the assessment year 990-91 for opinion to this Court.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income could be properly deducted from the method of accounting employed by the assessee within the meaning of proviso to Section 145{1) of the Act only because it was in accordance with Section 209(3)(b) of the Companies Act as amended by the Government Notification of May 16, 1989 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.3. The assessee is an undertaking of the U.P. Government registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of financing medium and large-scale industries in U.P. It has originally been following mercantile system of accounting but w.e.f. 1....
Prem Krishna Srivastava S/O Late Rai Kashi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC55; [2005(107)FLR746]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.1998. After his retirement, a show cause notice dated 27.9.1999 was issued and on this basis, a charge sheet dated 8.11.1999 was issued alleging a financial loss of Rs. 36,517/- on the department. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet was initiated against the petitioner. This enquiry is still pending even after a lapse of six years.3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that the amount of Rs. 36,517/- had been illegally withheld from the. gratuity of the petitioner and that this amount could not be withheld after the petitioner had retired since no previous sanction was obtained from the Governor under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations.4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel submitted that on the basis of certain audit objections, a char...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamla Town Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)281; [2005]279ITR89(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'1. Whether in law and on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee- trust was not hit by the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(b) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a trust. It was set up on October 27, 1941, by M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., inter alia, with the following objects:'2. (b) To erect, establish, equip, furnish, fit, maintain and repair on the said two plots of land and any other land that may hereinafter be acquired by the trustees on behalf of the trust.(i) Residential quarters, chawls or bu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Gulf Fertilizer and Chemical Corpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)293; [2006]280ITR621(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Member of Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order of the AO taxing the amount of interest and miscellaneous receipts, was erroneous and against law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the amount of interest and miscellaneous receipts were not exigible to tax at the hands of the assessee-company as income from other sources ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1988-89.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The company was incorporated in 1983 with the main object of setting up a fertiliser plant and manufacturing of fertilisers. During the year under consideration, ...
Sukhvir Singh Vs. Sukhvir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC202
Janardan Sahai, J.1. A suit was filed by the respondent Sukhvir Singh against the petitioner Sukhvir Singh for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from changing the nature of the pond and from interfering in the plaintiffs or other village inhabitants' right of user thereof. In the body of the plaint it was stated that the suit has been instituted under Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code as representative of other village inhabitants and also in the plaintiffs individual capacity. However, no application for permission under Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code was filed at the time the suit was instituted. Later on the plaintiff/ respondent filed an application under Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner/defendant raised objections regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that it was not filed at the time of the institution of the suit. The trial court allowed the application and dismissed the petitioner's objections. The pet...
Cit Vs. Indo Gulf Fertilizer and Chemical Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR521(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Member of ITAT was justified in law in holding that the order of the assessing officer taxing the amount of interest and miscellaneous receipts, was erroneous and against law2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was legally correct in holding that the amount of interest and miscellaneous receipts were not exigible to tax at the hands of the assessee company as income from other sources'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1988-89.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The company was incorporated in 1983 with the main object of setting up a fertiliser plant and manufacturing of fertilisers. During...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »