Allahabad Court September 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.
Virendra Kumar Son of Jai NaraIn and Jai NaraIn Son of Sadi Lal (In Ja ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC226
Amar Saran, J.1. This criminal appeal arose from the judgement and order dated 10.2.1984 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No, 149 of 1983 convicting the appellants Virendra Kumar and Jal Narain to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.2. As the appellant Jal Narain died on 19.11.1989 and a report dated 13.1.05 to that effect was received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, hence the appeal against the appellant Jal Narain abates and only the appeal of Virendra Kumar survives.3. We have heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the informant Sheo Karan's niece Smt. Pushpa was married to the appellant Virendra Kumar, son of Jal Narain in village Chirli, police station Ghatampur. Immediately after the marriage Virendra Kumar, his brother Suresh Kumar used to hum...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bajrang Dal Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)332; [2006]282ITR44(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. In Income Tax Reference No. 68 of 1987 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:-'Whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable to the Income-tax proceedings?'2. Whereas in Income Tax Reference No. 275 of 1991 which relates to proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 273(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following identical question of law for opinion to this Court:- 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling penalty of Rs. 15, 000)/- imposed Under Section 273(c) in view of the facts and circumstance of the case when the order dated 21.1.1986 in I.T.A. Nos. 2086 & 2087 (Alld) relied upon is already subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court by way of departmental application Under Section 256(1) aga...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Someshwar Saran Kothiwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)448; [2006]285ITR185(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue Tribunal has referred the following three questions under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court relating to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. is right in law in holding that the CWT (Appeals) was bound to get the matter of valuation of property referred to the Valuation Officer before enhancing the value of the same, while disposing of the appeal Under Section 23(5) of the W.T. Act, particularly when the matter of valuation of property was not referred to the Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having upheld the orders of the CWT (Appeals) in quantum appeal, the I.T.A.T. is legally correct in holding that the assessee is not debarred from raising the plea of illegality of assessment for the limited purpose of penalty ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri R.M. Malhotra, Pro. Malhotra Nursi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)498; [2006]283ITR181(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.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 opinion to this Court :-'Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in granting investment allowance to the assessee?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee, who is an individual, carries on proprietary business in the name of M/s Malhotra Nursing & Maternity Home. The assessee's claim of investment allowance with reference to ultra sound machine equipment shown by the name of Echoscan which is a scanner specially intended for obstetrics and gynaecology was disallowed by the assessing officer. By means of the scanner an image is got on the screen for various purposes relating to the assessment of pregnancy, control of foetus, heart activity, foetus positioning, foetal sex assessment, foetal malformations, biometr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radla Machinery Export
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]283ITR185(All)
1. These two references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Department in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. In Reference No. 17 of 1991 the following question of law has been referred:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee's claim of investment allowance under Section 32A on computer was allowable ?2. Whereas in Reference No. 251 of 1992 the following question of law has been referred:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee's claim for investment allowance under Section 32A as well as additional depreciation on computer was allowable ?3. The assessee is a registered firm and was engaged in the business of pumps and electrical motors and was sole distributor of Jyoti Pump and most of its supplies were made to the Government Department. It...
Unied India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manju Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC575
R.P. Misra, J.1. This first appeal from order has been filed challenging the award made by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarding a sum of Rs. 3,89,962 as compensation on account of death of one Bal Govind.2. The facts are that the deceased was in employment as a driver of the truck belonging to respondent No. 6 which was insured with appellant company. An accident took place on 30.3.2003 while the deceased was going to load sand with another truck which was being driven negligently which resulted in death. The dependants of the deceased filed claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,40,000 along with 12% interest and 50% penalty.3. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that an accident took place during the course of employment. The Commissioner further found that deceased was drawing his salary of Rs. 3,500 per month and Rs. 25 per day as 'KHURAKI'. On perusal of impugned award, we find that the findings have been recorded by the...
Sri Vijendra Singh S/O Sri Rishal Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC698
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioner claiming himself to be senior to respondent no. 5 has challenged the impugned order dated 30.5.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as head master of the institution on ad hoc basis has been rejected, by holding that the petitioner's representation is not worth consideration, as he is even otherwise junior to the respondent no. 5 and is not working in the institution, for which reliance has been placed by the respondent the District Inspector of Schools on the inspection report dated 13.8.2003.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Y.K. Saxena has raised three principle objections for declaring the order to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, namely, that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of a report about which the petitioner was never put to notice and further, the assum...
Committee of Management Through Its Manager and Yogendra Pal Sharma So ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR804]
A.P. Sahi, J. 1. These two writ petitions question the validity of the order dated 23.7.2005 as communicated by the Secretary of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Selection Board, Allahabad dated 2.8.2005, whereby the proposal of the termination of Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Principal of Yogananand Ram Narain Vaidic Inter College, Badaun has been turned down and the proposal of termination has been substituted by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. The Committee of management has filed writ petition No. 57071 of 2005 assailing the order to the extent it rejects the proposal of termination and writ petition No.58075 of 2005 has been filed by the delinquent employee Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta challenging the punishment awarded by the Board by stopping of his two increments.2. I have heard Sri Radhey Shayam, learned counsel for the petitioner/ Management, Sri P.C.Sharma, Advocate for the Principal Sri S.C.Gupta and Sri Anil Kumar...
Jagrathi Wife of Rama Kant Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC845
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh dated 6.2.1989 has been challenged.2. Heard Sri Amrendra Pandey, learned advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri Rajednra Rai, learned advocate in opposition thereof.3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is clearly illegal as two appeals filed against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.12.1982 were earlier dismissed and therefore, passing of the impugned order on the complaint of respondents, after necessary enquiry cannot be said to be just and proper. Submission is that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity before passing the order. It has been further submitted that the exercise of powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(3) of UPCH Act, on the facts cannot be said to be justified. Lastly, it has been submitted that the property w...
Jayprakash Pramod Kumar Through Its Proprietor Jayprakash Bansal and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1404
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the levy and demand of market fee on bamboos sold by the petitioners as also the direction to take out licence under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are as follows:The petitioners are carrying on the business in the purchase and sale of bamboos. They are registered as dealer under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act with the Trade Tax Department. They purchase bamboos mostly from the places outside the State of U.P. They sell it within the State of U.P. as also to places outside the State of U.P. On 11th April, 1978, the Government of U.P. issued a notification under Section 8(i)(a) of the Adhiniyam declaring that with effect from 1st May, 1978 agricultural produce mentioned in the Schedule shall be included in the list of specified agricultural produce of market ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »