Allahabad Court October 2006 Judgments

Girish NaraIn Chaudhari Vs. Rojai and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(1)AWC56

Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, advocate for the appellant and Sri Manish Nigam holding brief of Sri B.D. Pandey for the respondents.2. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court dated 11.9.2006 are challenged in this second appeal whereby the court below has dismissed the appellant's first appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.3. Appellant's suit for permanent injunction was dismissed and the counter-claim of the respondents defendants was decreed by the trial court directing the plaintiff to remove his wall and channel gate falling in the disputed land. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming the land in question as his sahan and had claimed the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. On the contrary while contesting, the suit, the defendants had pleaded that the land in question in which the wall and channel gate has been erected by the plaintiff is actually a rasta land continuously used by them...

Export Metals Through Its Partner, Mukesh Kumar Vs. U.P. Financial Cor ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(1)AWC969

R.P. Misra and Shishir Kumar, JJ.1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the proceeding for sale of the factory M/S Export Metals, Aligarh as mentioned in the advertisement published in Hindi 'Dainik Jagaran' dated 29.9.2006. Further prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any step for the sale of the factory of the petitioner.2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was granted loan by the respondents in the year 1984. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner (No. 41164 of 2000) was listed for hearing on 4.9.2006 and as the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Sri V.K. Barman had no information, as such the matter was decided finally by this Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that as the petitioner is availing the alternative remedy by way of filing a suit, therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismisse...

Pujari Yadav Son of Shri Sovambar Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav Son of Shri Bab ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1302

Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. The main question involved in this appeal is when can a contract of personal service be enforced in a civil suit.THE FACTS2. There is a school known as Shri Shanker Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pargana Ghosi, district Azamgarh (the School). This school imparts education up to 10th class and is recognized under Intermediate Education Act 1921 (the Act); it is also given grant-in-aid by the State Government in respect of salaries of its teachers and non-teaching staff.3. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Class IV employee in the School on 1.3.1976 and was subsequently confirmed. There was misappropriation of Rs. 1400/- from the Boys' Fund. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant had forged the signatures of the Principal and had taken out the money. The defendant-respondent was the officiating principal of the school. He called an explanation of the plaintiff-appellant on 11.5.1977. Initially a reply was submitted on 11.5.1977. Therea...

Committee of Management Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya and anr. Vs. St ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(1)AWC734

Vineet Saran, J.1. This writ petition relates to a dispute regarding the Election of the Committee of Management. The petitioner No. 2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as well as the respondent No. 3, Shambhu Rai both claim to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Tamkuhi Road, Shevarahi, district Kushi Nagar. The matter was placed before the Vice Chancellor for decision under Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State Universities Act. By an order dated 29.9.2006, the Vice Chancellor recognized the petitioner No. 2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management. On the same date, the Vice Chancellor subsequently stayed the operation of the first order dated 29.9.2006 and thereafter proceeded to pass a third order on the same date, i.e., 29.9.2006, whereby the first order by which the petitioner No. 2 was recognized as Manager was recalled and the election of respondent No. 3, Shambhu Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management was ...

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2007All39; 2007(1)AWC329; [2007(2)JCR340(All)]

Prakash Krishna , J.1. Bungalow known as 'White House' being House No. 15/71, Civil Lines Kanpur standing on plot Nos. 104, 104-A 104-B, total area of about 14972 sq. yards was sought to be purchased by the present applicant, namely, Sri Ramesh Chandra Srivastava (now dead) and represented by his heirs and legal representatives from its owner namely Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (L.D.T.A.), duly incorporated under the Companies Act, for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On 5th May, 1960 the applicant and LDTA entered into registered agreement to purchase the aforesaid premises by means of a registered agreement to purchase. Applicant paid Rs. 5000/- as earnest money for the aforesaid bungalow standing on lease hold property and there was a condition in the lease deed prohibiting alienation except with the sanction of the District Magistrate, and, therefore, an application for permission to sell the lease hold rights in favour of the applicant was moved. Requisite permission was granted by ...

Anand Prakash Vs. Smt. Chander Kanta and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1254

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlords filed an application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur, for release of a portion of house No. 7/805 situate in Mohalla Badtala Yadgar Unchcha Tilla, district Saharanpur under the tenancy of the petitioner.3. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the release application.4. The Prescribed Authority after going through the pleadings and evidence on record vide order dated 11.4.2001, dismissed the release application.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2001 of the Prescribed Authority the respondent-landlords filed Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2004 before the appellate court which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2005, hence this writ petition.6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 19.11.2005 of the appellate court ...

Cwt Vs. Gopal Sutwala

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2008]299ITR30(All)

ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the two questions of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in allowing deduction of 1 /6th for repairs and 6 per cent for collection charges for working out the net Annual Letting Value of the property ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land does not enter into picture where the value of a property is determined by capitalising the net annual Letting Value of the property?2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present references are as follows:The assessees who are Gopal Sutwala (Individual), Gopal Sutwala (Karta) ...

Late Iqbal HussaIn Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case are that assessee was an advocate and was a senior citizen. He had filed return of income from property and bank at Rs. 1,78,910. In this computation the assessee had declared long-term capital loss of Rs. 4,82,853 from sale of land/plot measuring 1,75,583 sq. ft. The land was situated at Sivpur, Sahebganj, Gorakhpur and was co-owned by the assessee. The capital gains was computed as under: Less : Index-cost of acquisition taking value as on 1-4-1981 @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. of 1,75,583 sq. ft.3. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee revised the measurement of the land to 1,92,383 sq. ft. from 1,75,583 sq. ft. and the long-term capital loss to Rs. 5,92,165 from Rs. 4,82,853. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer worked out the capital gain at Rs. 17,14,259 as against ...

Late Iqbal Hussain, L/H-2 Ekram Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(All.)717

1. Those are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty Under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case are that assessce was an Advocate and was a senior citizen. He had filed return of income from property and bank at Rs. l,78,910/-.In this computation the assessee had declared long tem capital loss of Rs. 4,82,853/- from sale of land/plot measuring 175583 sq. ft. The land was situated at Sivpur, Sahebganj, Gorakhpur and was co-owned by the assessee The capital gains was computed as under:Total sale consideration Rs. 43, 89,575 Less; Index-cost of acquisition taking value as 100 Rs. 53,55,280 --------------- 3. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee revised the measurement of the land to 192383 sq. ft. from 175583 sq. ft. and the long term capital loss to Rs. 5,92,165/- from Rs. 4,82,853/-. While completing die assessment, the A.O. worked out the capital gain at Rs. 17,14,259/- as against capital loss ...

Jawahar Singh Parihar S/O Hukum Singh Parihar Vs. State of U.P. Throug ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1007]

Sushil Harkauli and G.P. Srivastva, JJ.1. By this writ petition the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, under Fundamental Rule 56(c) by the order of the Appointing Authority, i.e. the Governor, dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure '12' to the writ petition), has challenged the said order.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case.3. Undisputedly, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Governor on the report of a Screening Committee consisting of five Senior Judges of this Court. The report was approved in a Full Court meeting, and accordingly the recommendation was made to the Appointing Authority, i.e. the Governor, for compulsory retirement of the petitioner.4. Before entering into the facts justifying the compulsory retirement, as mentioned by respondent No. 2 in the counter affidavit, it may be stated here that the order of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of t...