Allahabad Court January 2006 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.
Dinesh Kumar Son of Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P., Through the Collect ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC787
Vineet Saran, J.1. On 12.12.1975 the plot in dispute was declared surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Then on 6.3.1976 the Land Management Committee allotted one Bigha each from the said plot to Kripa (grand-father of the petitioner) and two other persons. On 19.11.1977, the Sub-Divisional Officer granted approval and thereafter the names of the allottees were recorded in the revenue records. After the death of the said Kripa in 1991, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. However, on 18.5.1993 a notice is said to have been issued to Kripa for cancellation of the lease of the plot granted in his favour. It is note worthy that the said Kripa had already expired on that date and the name of the petitioner had already been entered in the revenue records. However, by order dated 23.9.1993 passed by respondent no. 2, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut, the lease granted in favour of Kripa was can...
Ramesh Chandra Sharma Son of Late Chhadami Lal Sharma Vs. Punjab Natio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ1104All
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th November, 1997, by which the Zonal Manager Central, U.P. Zone, Agra of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the 'Bank'), imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service of the Bank and the appellate order dated 21.10.1998 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of dismissal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A further relief has been sought that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay the postretiral benefits to the petitioner.2. The petitioner, who was working as a Manager in the Bank, was served with a charge sheet dated 06.03.1996 for committing certain lapses. The petitioner did not submit any statement of defence even though the time was extended on his request several times. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 23rd April, 1996 and the inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Offic...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narayan Glass Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)503; [2006]285ITR23(All)
1. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for opinion to this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance under Section 32A on an expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,23,415 as held by the Tribunal?2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:The assessee is a registered firm carrying on a business of manufacture of glassware. It claimed that it remodeled its existing furnace by dismantling it and built a new one thereon at a cost of Rs.2,23,415 and claimed investment allowance thereon under Section 32A of the Act. The ITO did not allow the claim as in his opinion this amounted to replacement of an old furnace by a new furnace and that the asset, which was brought into existence, could not be said to be a new as...
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006FAJ225
ORDERAmar Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record.2. The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment of the JM. Ghaziabad, dated 20.6.1986 in Case No. 437 of 1985, whereby the objection of the applicant has been overruled and the prosecution has been permitted to withdraw certain papers find documents as the complaint in another Case No. 438/85 had got filed in this case (Case No. 437 of 1985) and vice versa and to bring the correct complaint and other relevant papers on record, as they had got mistakenly inter-changed in the two cases which related to the same accused. Secondly, that the order of impleadment of the applicant who was the manufacturer of the Vanaspati was illegal and against the provisions of Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.3. So far as the submission about the Magistrate not being empowered to permit the Food Inspector to withdraw some of the wrong papers relating to the other ...
Km. Kanchan Daughter of Ravindra Singh, Through Her Guardian Uncle Bri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC388
R.C. Deepak, J.1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekher Giri and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.2. Supplementary and counter affidavits have also been filed.3. The present writ petition relates to the custody of the petitioner Km. Kanchan, who claims herself to be major aged about 25 years and a teacher in Janta Junior High School, Madhukar, District Rampur and in this regard she has filed a copy of the attendance register of the staff of the institution and her name finds place at serial no. 4, a copy of which is appended as annexure-16 to the writ petition. Her date of birth has been shown as 2nd July, 1989 in the Highschool certificate, a copy of which is also appended as annexure-12 to the writ petition. She was medically examined by the Doctor of District Women Hospital, Rampur on 14.11....
Chetan Prakash and anr. Vs. Raghu Nandan Garg Alias Raghunandan Sharan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All199
ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Shri Sunil Vashisth counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vivek Chaudhary counsel for the plaintiff respondent.2. This writ petition arises out of execution proceedings. The plaintiff-respondent instituted two suits. In Original Suit No. 873 of 1987, the relief claimed was for mandatory injunction against the petitioners and also for removal of gate fixed by the defendant petitioners on the land in question. The suit No. 1127 of 1990 was also instituted for removal of the gate fixed by the defendants. Simultaneously, the petitioners also instituted two suits. In Original Suit No. 164 of 1990, the relief claimed was for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff respondent to close his door which he had opened towards the wall marked with the letter Aa, Ba, Da and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining him to interfere in the possession over the property which was a passage shown in the map. Second Original Suit No. 1107 of ...
Sanjay Paper and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All106
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Original Suit No. 119 of 2002 was filed by Shakuns Moterik Company Ltd. against the petitioner M/s. Sanjay Paper and Chemical Industries Ltd. Along with the suit, an injunction application was also filed, in which no ex parte injunction was granted and only notices were issued to the defendant fixing 14.3.2002. However, prior to the said date, on 26.2.2002, the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed an application for withdrawal of the said suit. Before any orders could be passed on the said application for withdrawing the suit, on 27.8.2003, the respondent No. 3 filed another Suit No. 518 of 2003 with the same prayer as in the earlier Suit No. 119 of 2002. In this Original Suit No. 518 of 2003 also no ex parte injunction was granted and on 27.8.2003, only notice was issued by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur fixing 26.9.2003 for hearing on the injunction application. However, in the meantime on 3.9.2003 the application dated 26.2.2002 praying for withdraw...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›