Allahabad Court October 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.
Shiv Raj Singh son of Har Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC54
A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. All the respondents are represented by the learned Standing Counsel, hence no notice need be issued and the writ petition can be finally decided without calling for the record of the case as contemplated under Rules of Court.3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 1-9-2006/Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aliganj (District Etah) has suspended the fair price shop licence/agreement in favour of the petitioner on receiving certain complaint (mentioned in the said order of suspension).4. Apparently, no notice appears to have been given before the said suspension order is passed. Prima facie such order of suspension cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Ganesha v. District Magistrate, Mahoba and Anr. 2001 (43) ALR 184. Apart from the above, we also take note of the fact that t...
Markande Vs. Sudama Chaubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All70; 2007(2)AWC1466
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in which after service of the summons, the appellant defendant did not come to contest and no written statement was filed. The cancellation was sought on the ground that under undue influence and misrepresentation the impugned sale deed was got executed after practising fraud upon the plaintiff. The pleadings are to the effect that the parties are from the same family and since the plaintiff had been left all alone after the death of his wife and the employment of his son in Indian Army, he came in very close association with the defendant and a sort of dependence of him (sic) upon the defendant appellant. Accordingly, his farming job was also taken over by the defendant and in that context at one point of time the power of attorney was to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. On that pretext, the plaintiff was taken to the Sub-Regis...
Hari Singh, Advocate Vs. Mahaveer Sabha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC22
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. This revision challenges the order dated 10.8.2006 whereby, petitioner's prayer of amendment in the written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. has been dismissed.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the court below has wrongly and illegally acted in dismissing the prayer of amendment in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant. Certain facts have also been noted in the impugned Judgment. The evidence of the plaintiff is still not closed, the occasion for the defendant to lead his evidence, therefore, did not arise till date.4. From the facts and circumstances demonstrated on the record, it is found that this application for amendment is wholly misconceived. Now by virtue of this proposed amendment the plaintiff intends to take a summersault of his original case which he took in his written statement.5. U has been admitted in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant that Mahaveer ...
Bindal Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Handloom Factory and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC23
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. This revision challenges the order of the court below dated 29.8.2006 whereby petitioner's prayer for dismissing the suit under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C. and Section 15 read with Schedule II Article 4 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been rejected.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the suit is filed before the Judge Small Causes Court for the relief of eviction of the defendants and recovery of arrears of rent and damages in which the revisionist was arrayed as a party in his capacity as sub-tenant and defendant No. 1 has been pleaded to be the principal tenant. This fact is disputed by the revisionist claiming itself to be the principal tenant in the premises and the contention of the revisionist is accepted by defendant No. 1 also while stating that he has no concern with the premises in question nor he was ever inducted therein as a tenant by the landlord. On the ...
Roop Chand JaIn Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi JaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2845
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Sah O.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge dated September 4, 2006 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 24, C.P.C. has been rejected.3. The petitioner revisionist moved the District Judge for transfer of Execution Case No. 2/1996, which relates to the execution of a decree of ejectment. Against the applicant the decree was passed in March, 1995 and thereafter it was put in execution in 1996. Subsequent thereto, there were sets of objections either under Section 47 or Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. filed against the execution petition but in none of it any stay order of the execution proceeding was granted by the court below. When the executing court did not stop the proceeding in the execution matter, the only remedy, which could be visualised by the judgment debtor applicant, is to file a transfer petition before the District Judge. By a well discu...
Sayed Mohammad Mahfooj Son of Shri Sayed Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1050
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.8.2002 dismissing petitioner-appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12701 of 1999.2. We have heard Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Ojha, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. C.B. Yadav, Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhinav Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.3. The undisputed facts, giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant was engaged as Assistant Accountant on contract basis for a period of one year from the date of taking over charge in Hamirpur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vide order dated 26.11.1994. The terms and conditions of appointment clearly stipulated that the appointment would automatically come to end on expiry of one year, and, even otherwise is wholly temporary liable to be terminated a...
J.U. Pesticides and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST356(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated June 15, 2006 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the seizure of the goods, namely, 99 drums of agro-chemicals and the demand of security at Rs. 15 lacs.2. Brief facts of the case stated in the revision petition are that the applicant is a private limited company having its registered office situated at 116-A, GH-2, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and its manufacturing unit situated at District Kamrup, Assam. The applicant has branch office at Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of agro-chemicals. It is stated that on June 3, 2005, the applicant dispatched 75 drums and 198 bags of agro-chemicals from its manufacturing unit to its branch in the State of Punjab. The consignment was for 6,600 kg., and its value was Rs. 76,20,000. In respect of the said consignment,...
Krishna Chandra Gupta Vs. Kalyani Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1527
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 27.8,2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 135 of 1997 allowing the appeal and releasing the shop in dispute in favour of the landlords.3. The facts of this case in a short compass are that the parties to the dispute were earlier members of the same joint family. After partition in their family in the year 1960, the shop in dispute fell in the share of the father of the respondent-landlords 1 to 3. Both families are engaged in the same business of paper flower decoration. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the disputed shop in House No. 55, Chowk, Allahabad on rent at the rate of Rs. 400 per month since 1960 alleged to have been let out to him by late Sri Gulab Chandra, father of respondent-landlords 2 and 3 and husband o...
Hero Cycles Limited, Unit Ii, Through Its Senior General Manager (Acco ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST819(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the UP Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 11th September 2003 relating, to the assessment year. 1994-952. The question involved in the present revision relates to the taxability of 'Fit kit Exerciser' tribunal has explained it as a cycle with a seat and paddle without any wheel. It is used for body exercise to maintain the body fitness.3. The claim of the applicant is that such 'Fit Kit Exerciser' is liable to tax at the rate of 3 percent under Notification No. ST-II-1097/XI-2 (3)-88-U.P. Act-XV/48-48-Order-91, dated 29.07.1991 and at the rate of 2 percent under Notification No. TT-2-3403/XI-9(116)/94-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94,dated 01.10.1994 within the entry 'Goods for indoor and outdoor games or sports' Assessing authonts, however, held that 'Fit Kit Exerciser' is not covered under the entry Goods for indoor and outdoor games or sports and being not classified e...
Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(All)171; [2007]288ITR278(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified that the production of stock register at the time of hearing of appeal constituted an additional evidence ?2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified to sustain the ad hoc addition of Rs. 13,000/- in the trading account without recording a finding of rejection of books of account?2. The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1 982-83.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follow:The assessee is a registered firm and carried on the business of sale of tin sheets only for the assessment year as alleged by it. It disclosed a returned income of Rs. 38,601/-. The gross profit shown was 4,2%. The Incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »