Allahabad Court November 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.
Mauji Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Ramwati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1339
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the appellants.2. This second appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2006 passed by the lower appellate court granting the appeal of the respondents plaintiffs and decreeing the suit by reversing the judgment and order of the trial court.3. The respondents plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of registered Will dated 23.10.1992 executed by one Preetam Singh, who happened to be father of the plaintiffs. The Will was challenged on the ground that it has been got executed by some impostor posing to be Preetam Singh. That Preetam Singh at that point of time of the execution of the Will was an old and infirm person of about 80 years of age. The plaintiffs, who are daughters, had been looking after his comforts and there was absolutely no occasion for Preetam Singh to execute a Will in favour of the defendants, who are simply his nephews, thus, divesting the ownership of the entire property held by him and e...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. S/S Gaya Prasad Anil Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC792
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 16.09.1998 relating to assessment year 1981-82, by which, the Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 22 of the Act.2. The dealer was carrying on the business of Oil-seed in its own account as well as in Commission Agency. During the year under consideration, dealer claimed to have made purchases of Mahua-seeds for Rs. 20,50,771.43 as a Commission Agent on behalf of manufacturer Principal holding Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Act. Dealer furnished Form 3-B obtained from the manufacturer Principal and claimed liability of tax on the aforesaid purchases @ 2%. The Assessing Authority in original assessment order dated 28.11.1983, allowed the claim and levied tax @ 2% on the aforesaid turnover of Rs. 20,50,771.43. In the order dated 25.9.1986 under Section 21, the Assessing Authority levied tax on the...
Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress (intuc) Through Its General Secretary and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR372]
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 8th May 2002 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi declining to refer the alleged dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.3. It emerges from record that the petitioners had worked as seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar (casual workers) at Air Force Station, Agra between 1991-2000, They were engaged from time to time during rainy seasons, i.e. from 1st June to 30th November each year. Their period of engagement has been indicated in the writ petition as well as in paragraph 2 of the of the judgment dated 28th May, 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allababad Bench, Allahabad, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is further borne out from the record that after their dis-engagement from service, they had approached the Central ...
Triveni Structurals Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1015
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as'Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 3rd March, 2000 relating to the assessment years, 1988-89 and 1989-90.2. Applicant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Naini, Allahabad. Applicant was engaged in the business of designing, fabricating, erecting and commissioning steel structural, including T.V. towers. In the years under consideration, applicant had executed various works contract in the State of U.P. various items in the form of iron and steel etc were purchased and the same were used in the manufacturing of structure, which were subsequently used in the execution of the works contract. Assessing authority levied the tax on the value of the steel structure used in the execution of the works at the rate of 8 percent. Levy of tax has been upheld in first appeals and by the Tribunal in second appeals.3. ...
Shri Rajesh Kumar Saxena Retd. Chief Accounts Officer (T.A) Vs. Bharat ... Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR784]
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioner was suspended on 26th June, 2004. He was relieved from duty on 5th July, 2004. The petitioner was actually retired from service on 31st July, 2004. The allegations relate to the year 2003 on which the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner amongst 30 other officers taking a general stand.2. Full pensionery benefits alongwith gratuity and leave encashment etc. have not been paid as yet. No charges were framed against the petitioner. No charge sheet has been submitted as yet. Against this background we want to consider the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble the apex Court and High Courts cited before us although it is well known that pension is the property of the pensioner.3. In D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors. : [1990]3SCR697 the Hon'ble the apex Court has held that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the petitioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of ...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. S/S Kapoor Rice Mill
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST733(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the'Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 15th January, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The dispute relates to the levy of tax on the amount of Rs. 2,95,710/-relating to the purchases of Khali as a Commission Agent on behalf of the manufacturer. The Assessing Authority levied the tax on the aforesaid amount in the absence of any Form 3-B. Dealer filed First Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Sitapur, which was rejected. Dealer filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and deleted the tax on the aforesaid turnover. The Tribunal held that the Principal had issued Form 3-B and liability to pay tax was on the Principal and not on the Commission Agent.3. Heard learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri K. Saksena appearing on behalf of the dealer/opp. party.4. With the consent...
Shiv Rani W/O Sri Sanjeev Kumar Vs. the District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All84
ORDERS.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Wasim Alam, learned Standing Counsel ably assisted by Sri Govind Saxena, learned Brief Holder, who appeared/argued as State Counsel to assist the court.2. By means of this writ petition challenge is to the order of the learned District Judge, Mainpuri dated 27.9.2006 by which revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhogaon/Election Tribunal by which petitioner's application for dismissal of the election petition for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and the notice under Section 106 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been rejected.3. Before proceeding to deal with the submission so advanced, a brief notice of small undisputed facts will be necessary. Petitioner happens to be winning candidate on the post of Pradhari, Gram panchayat, Rajwana, Tehsil Bhogaon, district Mainpuri in the election held in th...
Kunwar Singh S/O Sri Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1364
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.2. The revisionist complainant Kunwar Singh is aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2006 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Etwah in Criminal Case No. 106 of 2006, Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and Ors., under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.3. In short, the allegations of the revisionist Kunwar Singh were that on 5.6.2006 opposite party Ram Sewak his son Arvind, his brother Ram Das and Bhoop Singh brother of Arvind belaboured his father Ram Naresh at 4.00 P.M. on his roof. Medical examination of Ram Naresh was got done on 5.6.2006 at 6.55 P.M., and his medical report indicated two lacerated wounds, which were sustained by the injured. The X-ray report dated 6.6.2006 of the injured indicated that there was a fracture of his right parietal bone of skull. The F.I.R. a lodged by the revisionist complainant on 5.6.2006 at 5.05 P.M. at police station Ekdil regarding the said incident was registered as NCR. Sin...
Heera Lal and ors. Vs. Layak Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All83; 2007(2)AWC1802
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 8-8-2006 passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the defendants' first appeal has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants-defendants from interfering into his possession over the disputed plot.3. The suit is that out of the total are of plot No. 1132, an area of Order 161 hectare was allotted to the respondent-plaintiff by Gaon Sabha in the year 1992 over which he came in possession and had kept his Marha or Jhopari etc. and had constructed boundary wall. He is thus, continuing in possession thereon since its allotment, but since the defendants were also allotted a portion of the aforesaid plot No. 1132 by the Gaon Sabha, now they have started interference in the plaintiffs possession. They also tried to completely dispossess the plai...
Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Tilak Ram Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1011
Vinod Prasad, J.1. This revision has been filed by a proposed accused against an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is a pre cognizance order. The Magistrate has not made up any mind against anybody. The Magistrate has only looked into the application to find out a cognizable offence being disclosed or not? He had directed the police to follow the mandate of law as is spelt out by the Apex Court In many of the judgments including case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 as well as Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari 1993 SCC (Cr.) 36 and Union Of India v. W.N. Chadha 1993 SCC (Cr.) 1171. Nobody is an accused at that stage. Further under Section 397 Cr.P.C. only a 'Proceeding' can be challenged and the order passed in a proceedings is subject to revisional power. So far as proposed accused is concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. no 'Proceeding' has taken place in his respect. This has been held by the Apex Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »