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.
In Re: Oswal Foods Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas259(All); [2009]95SCL194(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. M/s. Oswal Foods Ltd. (in liquidation) was wound up by this Court on a petition filed by M/s. J. K. Corp. Ltd., a creditor to the extent of Rs. 51,21,968 as on August 30, 2000, by an ex parte order. A recall application was filed on November 7, 2000. It was directed to be listed before the hon'ble M. C. Jain, J. (since retired). The matter could not be heard, thereafter.2. In the recall application it is stated by Shri Suraj Jain, one of the directors of the company (in liquidation) that he came to know about the winding up order by communication given by the official liquidator dated October 18, 2000. No summons, process or notices were tendered to the company at its registered office. The company and its directors as well as the officials had no knowledge about the proceedings. The newspapers Amur Ujala published from Allahabad and Pioneer from Varanasi do not have circulation in Khalilabad, district Basti. It is stated in paragraph 9 that on account of certain ad...
Dhirendra Prasad Misra Son of Sri Ram Adhar Misra Vs. Presiding Office ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(All)403
S.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Mini Deposit Collector with Punjab National Bank in its branch office at Dammal Kanpur by its Regional Manager on 20.4.1977. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.12.1978 without any notice or charge sheet. Petitioner was also not paid the retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner raised a belated Industrial Dispute. Reference was made by the Government on 29.7.1982. Number of the said reference was L-12012/286/81-D II (A). From the number of the referring order, it appears that government was approached for making reference in the year 1981. Reference was registered before Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Kanpur as Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 1983. The Tribunal gave the award on 30.9.1985, which has been challenged through this writ petition.2. Tribunal held that petitioner was not workman as defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disput...
Praveen Kumar S/O Shri Kamdev Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi), T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC936
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Airman with the Indian Air Force. Proceedings were undertaken against him and court of inquiry was conducted. Thereafter show cause notice dated 22.12.2005 was served on the petitioner on 11.01.2006 to show cause as to why petitioner may not be discharged from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 for his alleged misconduct as brought out on court of enquiry. Petitioner submitted his reply on 25.05.2006 to the said show cause notice and thereafter in exercise of power under Section 22 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 order of discharge was passed on 09.11.2006 and the said order was served on petitioner on 10.11.2006.2. Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the aforementioned two actions directing his discharge and issuance of discharge certificate.3. At the point of time when matter has been taken up, Sri Shasha...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Radha Devi Kela
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR404(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that she was not assessable to wealth-tax and no return was required to be filed by her?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,900 under Section 18(1)(a) as sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax?2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee is an individual. In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 her wealth-tax returns were due on Augu...
Official Liquidator Vs. Shri B.K. Modi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas438(All); [2008]85SCL148(All)
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. It appears that the Company in question, namely Modi Carpets Limited was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 21.12.1993 passed on the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) (registered as Misc. Company Application No. 3 of 1993). The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the said Company.2. It further appears that the Official Liquidator filed an application, namely, Company Application No. 4 of 1998, under Section 454 of the Companies Act 1956.3. The following persons, who were stated to be the Ex-Directors of the said Company (in liquidation), were impleaded as the Opposite Parties in the said Company Application No. 4 of 1998 (Paper No. A-3):1. B.K. Modi2. S.K. Modi3. K.K. Sen4. Ravindra Narain5. Shailendra Swarup6. C.M. Maniar7. R.P. Dongre8. Rajeev Kumar9. N.D. Bhatia10. S.L Duggal4. It is, interalia, stated in the said Company Application No. 4 of 1998 (Paper No....
Hemendra Swaroop Bhatnagar (Now Deceased) Substituted by Sri Satendra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1045
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Shri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri U.K. Saxena appearing for the respondent and learned standing counsel.2. This is an special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court filed against judgment and order dated 10.8.2006 of Hon'ble Justice A.P. Sahi discharging the contempt notice issued in Contempt Petition No. 1145 of 1997.3. Shri U.K. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this special appeal. Shri Saxena relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (3) AWC 2904; Chandra Shekhar v. J.P. Rajpoot and Ors. contended that against an order of discharging contempt notices neither an appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 nor special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is maintainable.4. Shri Ajit Kumar replying the preliminary objection of the respondent contend...
Ravi Shanker Tripathi Son of Shri Sangam Lal Tripathi Vs. Board of Rev ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1327
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. A learned Judge of this Court has referred the matter to the Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in Kali Shanker Dwivedi v. Board of Revenue and Ors. 2000 (18) LCD 1401, and Sri Ram v. Board of Revenue U.P. and Ors. 1999 JIR 647.2. The question involved is regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division to decide the Revision under the provisions of the amended Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in order to appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to reproduce the unamended and the amended Sections 218 and 219 of the Act.3. Sections 218 and 219 of the Act prior to its amendment by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 which came into force w.e.f. 18th August, 1997 read was follows:218. Reference to the Board.- The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may cal...
Nitco Marble and Granite Private Ltd. Through Its Director Sri W.N. Ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST499(All)
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of revisionist-applicant (Assessee) and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent (department.2. Revisionist-assessee is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. The revisionist company applied for grant of exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the UP. Trade Tax Act for a period of six years. The application so made by the revisionist-assessee was processed and an exemption certificate dated 13th November, 1984 for the period of six years i.e. 1st May, 1984 to 30th April, 1990 was granted in favour of the petitioner.3. However, on certain facts being brought to the notice of the department, a show-cause notice under Section 4-A (3) of the UP. Trade Tax Act was issued qua cancellation of the eligibility certificate on the ground that the Assessee has installed used machinery/ leased second-hand machineries, and lastly the Assessee inste...
Seema and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC372
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. A wife lodged a first information report against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband's brother and two petitioners, who happen to be the wife of the husband's brother and the sister of the husband.2. The police after investigation, filed a charge-sheet (Crl. Case No. 1711 of 2003) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur District Ghaziabad.3. In the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, the wife, her father and mother and other witnesses did not name the petitioners as the culprits and the investigating officer was, therefore, of the view that they should be exonerated but the higher police authorities asked him, to include the name of the two petitioners in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the investigating officer re-examined the complainant's wife Afsana, opposite party No. 2 (here) under Section 161, Cr.P.C, wherein, she named the two petitioners and thereafter a charge-sheet against the accused including the two petitioners was filed...
Ashok Buxi Son of Sri Jodh Buxi and Smt. Manju Buxi Wife of Ashok Buxi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC507
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Wife filed a complaint (No. 1088 of 1999) against the husband and ten other relatives for non-return of Stridhan property under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate (A.CJ.M.) Agra issued process. Two of the eleven accused , named above, being the brother and the wife of husband's brother have come under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.2. The complainant-Opp.Party No. 2 has mentioned the Stridhan given in para No. 6 of the complaint, and the list annexed which are as follows:(i) Cash amount of Rs. 35,000/-(ii) One Bajaj Chetak Scooter.(iii) One Big Almirah.(iv) Polar Ceiling Fan.(v) Two HARS of Gold and(vi) One Ring of Gold(vii) Etc.3. It was mentioned in the complaint that she was turned out of the house by his Kinsmen while the husband had gone out of the country and they retained the Stridhan item for themselves. A notice was also given for return of Stridhan property by the wife (Opp. Party No. 2) to the accused but the Stridhan proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »