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.
Ram Singhasan Thakur Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All373
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of district Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. He was a recognized freedom fighter. He was getting pension made for the freedom fighters since 1974. He was also getting other facilities from then. One private individual made a complaint against the petitioner and his family members. On 27th September, 1999 the petitioner received a letter under registered post from the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner's grant of pension was cancelled provisionally and order for recovery of pension amount was made. Further reminder was given to the petitioner on 23rd December, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the concerned respondent disclosing the facts and figures with a reason for not giving reply to the first letter within time and requesting him not to cancel the pension. Further letters were also given giving other particulars. However, by a letter dated 26th September, 2001 the Government of India stopped pension and finally...
Nazim HusaIn S/O Sri Ishaq HusaIn and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Cons ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1322
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.9.1978 in so far as it is against them and the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.7.1977.2. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar and Sri Rajendra Kumar, Advocate in support of writ petition and Sri Sankatha Rai Advocate in opposition thereof.3. In the basic year record, name of both sides was recorded over the land in dispute. An objection was filed by the opposite party claiming sole right in the land and expunction of the entry in favour of petitioners. Petitioners objected to the claim of respondents and they pleaded for their co-tenancy rights. Petitioners in support of their case examined one of the petitioner as witness, whereas respondents in support of their case, examined one of the respondent as witness Documentary evidence were also filed by both sides. The Consolidation Officer on consideration of the facts reject...
In Re: Parasrampuria Trading and Finance Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas834(All); [2006]70SCL342(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Rajnath Shukla, learned Counsel for the official liquidator and Sri Navin Sinha, senior advocate for the respondents-ex-directors of the company (in liquidation).2. This is an application under Sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'), by the official liquidator against the ex-directors of M/s. Parasrampuria Trading and Finance Ltd. (in liquidation), namely, Shri Gopal Pandey, Sri Vishnu Kant Misra, Smt. Chandra Kala Parasram Puria and Shri Sudhir Kumar Parasram Puria, arrayed as respondents, accused of committing misfeasance and conducting the business of the company in a manner as it was a private company and to have retained the advances received by them, within five years of the winding up of the company defrauding creditors and causing severe losses to the company.3. On a creditor's winding up petition in Company Petition No. 58 of 1997 by M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., M/s. Parasrampuria Trading and Finance Ltd. (in liquidation...
Ayub Ahmad S/O Late Zahoor Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. (Through Principal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC247
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Triveni Shanker for the private respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.2. The brief facts of this case are that in the year 1996 the petitioner filed suit No. 25 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act before the Assistant Collector, Dhampur, District Bijnor with the prayer to pass a decree for declaration that the petitioner is the Bhumidhar of plot No. 1 in question measuring 8 Bighas 18 Biswas. The trial court framed preliminary issue as to whether in view of the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short Act of 1950) and Displaced. Persons (Compensation and Re...
P.K. Malik Son of Pandit Vidur Malik Vs. State of U.P. Through Princip ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ESC2404
A.N. Ray, C.J., Sunil Ambwani and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. The short order of reference made to us, is set out below:'This writ petition has been filed seeking the benefit of the Government Order dated 17.10.1998 for making those Instructors as Lecturers who had been performing the duties of Lecturer, even though they had never applied for the post of Lecturer or faced any selection process for the said post. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Ganesh Tripathi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors, : AIR1997SC1446 , we doubt the power of the Government to issue the said Government Order dated 17.10.1998. More so, placing reliance upon the said Government Order, the Division Bench of this Court had given retrospective effect to the said Government Order, though such terms were not retrospective effect to the said Government Order, though such terms were not incorporated therein, in writ petition No. 32098 of 1999, Dr. Swatantra Bala Sharma v. State of Uttar Padesh and ...
U.P. Badminton Association Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2434
Pradeep Kant, J.1. U.P. Badminton Association, a registered body, questions the legality and validity of the order dated 23rd August, 2005, passed by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the L.D.A.) as well as the order dated 20th August, 2005 passed by the State of U.P. by means of which the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of the land in question by the L.D.A. has been predetermined in pursuance of the direction Issued by the State Government contained in letter/order dated 20th August, 2005. The two orders have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition The writ petition was filed and was taken up for orders on 25th August, 2005, with the allegation that the respondents have already approached the premises for demolishing the existing constructions and there was imminent threat to the existing constructions of being demolished. Learned Advocate General, Sri Virendra Bhatia, who appeared for the State, while asking for one...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Daljeet Tyres
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)530; [2006]287ITR344(All)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act has been filed by the Revenue on the following question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of CIT(A) directing allowance of the assessee's claim for investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act, 1961 at, Rs. 3,79,285 on new machineries installed in the branch set for doing printing job on tin plates.2. The assessment year in question is 1989-90. The assessee-respondent feeling aggrieved by an order of assessment dt. 15th March, 1990, by means of which plea of the assessee that he was entitled to the investment allowance to the tune of Rs. 3,79,285.40, was rejected by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act, filed an appeal and the CIT(A) vide his order dt. 30th April, 1992 allowed the said claim upsetting the findings recorded by the AO and the appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) has been dis...
Mohd. Shakir Ali and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC709
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. All these applications have arisen out of a common judgment and order dated 6th July, 2005 passed in F.A.F.O. Nos. 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670 and 671 of 2001 and Cross Appeal Nos. 202203, 202202,202197, 202198, 202199, 202200 and 202201 of 2004. Since a common law point is involved in all these review applications; we have heard them together and are deciding them by a common order.2. The relevant facts of these cases have been stated by us in our judgment dated 6th July, 2005 delivered in the aforesaid F.A.F.Os. and cross-appeals. It may be mentioned that a Maruti Van had met with an accident on 15th May, 1999. All the occupants of the Van, who were bachelors, had died on the spot. Their heirs, who are their parents, etc., filed claim petitions. Taking into consideration the respective income of the deceased persons as well as this fact that they were bachelors, dependency of the claimants was assessed to be 1/3rd of their income; and according to the age of the c...
Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited Through Its Director Sri Pradeep Ku ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(189)ELT129(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. Heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Sri Giridhar Gopal Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of sole contesting respondent (Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur). Perused impugned judgment and order dated 11-3-2005 (served on the appellant on 11-4-2005) giving rise to the present Central Excise Appeal No. 208 of 2005 filed by the appellant/M/S Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur.2. The substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal (added by way of amendment under our order passed today) are :'Whether the tribunal has committed an error of law in rejecting the adjournment application filed by the counsel for the Appellant on the ground that matter has been adjourned earlier also from time to time without applying its mind to the averments made in the adjournment application filed on the date fixed ?' and again 'whether the tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter as the counsel for ...
Moriroku Ut India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Mr. Takeo To ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2009(242)ELT525(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. Present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated August 29, 2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-II (NOIDA)/respondent no. 4 on the application moved by the petitioner for dispensing with the deposit of duty and the penalty demanded.2. The petitioner M/s. Moriroku UT India Pvt. Ltd. B-6-11, Sector-81, Phase-II, NOIDA Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar-UP filed an appeal along with stay application, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 12/ST/DC/NOIDA/2005 dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Div-IV, NOIDA/respondent no. 6 as provided under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 35 F of the Act for convenience is reproduced below:-' Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »