Allahabad Court February 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.
C.M. Pandey S/O Dr. C.S. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2668
V.M. Sahai and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. The questions arise for consideration are that as to whether the legality or validity of appointment of the petitioner which was subject matter of earlier writ petition filed by him has attained the finality between the parties? If it is so as to whether same can be subjected to further scrutiny by respondent authorities on account of subsequent decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 4092 of 2001 State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awashthi and Ors. decided on 16,12.2005 which was not related to the petitioner's case and arose out of retrenchments and/or termination of services of ad hoc, daily wage work-charged employees of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (State Agricultural Produce Markets Board) and Market Committees; and as to whether the termination of the services of petitioner purporting to be in compliance of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.12.2005 is justified under law?2. By this petition, the petitioner has cha...
Molahey and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2644
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Petitioner, Molahey and another have filed Writ Petition No. 3768 (M/B) of 2005 for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Master Plan, especially the portions of the Master Plan 2021 relating to the land mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition allegedly belonging to them and the notices under Sections 4(1)(6) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 31.3.2005 with its' corrigendum dated 5th May, 2005 and 24th October, 2005 respectively.2. Adarsh Samuhik Sahkari Krishi Samiti Limited has filed Writ Petition No. 4099 (M/B) of 2005 for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same Master Plan, 2021 relating to the land of the petitioner mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition and the same Notification under Section 4(1)(6) of the Land Acquisition Act. This writ petition came up for hearing before this Bench at the request of the parties to the petition on the ground that the same Master Plan and the Notification under the Land Acqu...
Rishi Kumar Jalan and anr. Vs. Lakshmendra Pal Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3386
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') dated 4th January, 2006, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order dated 24th November, 2003, by which the prescribed authority has allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord, under Section 21 of the Act, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 7 respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, in favour of the landlord, as he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of the chamber of landlord who is practising lawyer. It was also asserted by th...
Dharampal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3691
ORDERPradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the District Supply Officer was not having authority to cancel the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner under the Government order dated 3.7.1990. The competent authority is the District Magistrate for such cancellation.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who was running fair price shop has been elected as Pradhan of the village. It has also not been disputed that in the said Government order, there is a provision of Clause 4.7 which provides that if a person who is Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, no resolution shall be in his favour or even in favour of their family members, for allotment of the fair price shop. It is also admitted to the petitioner that this licence was granted by the District Supply Officer. The only plea which has been raised is that the Dist...
Umesh Kumar Son of Late Ram Swaroop and Smt. Mahendri Widow of Late Ra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2325
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have canvassed the legality of the impugned orders dated 27.9.2005, and 3.7.2004 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation. It would appear that by order-dated 3.7.2004, the Deputy Director Consolidation directed to enter the plots namely plot nos. 1955, 2433,2435, 2436 and 2437 in the revenue record in terms of settlement: area. The restoration application preferred against the said order came to be dismissed by a subsequent order dated 27.9.2005 on the premises that the impugned order was made on merits.2. It would transpire from the record that the dispute revolves round plot Nos. 1955, 2433/1, 2433/2, 2435, 2436/1, 2436/2 and 2437, It would further transpire that the area of these plots in the basic year as well as in the Settlement year was as under:Plot Nos. Area recorded in Area at present basic year1955 10 Biswa 10 Dhur 1955 16 Biswa 10 Dhur24 33 2 Bigha 2433/1 2 Bigha, 3 Biswa 2433/2 4 Biswa2435 1 Bigha 14 Bis...
Kesarwani Sheetalaya Through Its Partner Suresh Chandra Kesarwani Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1215]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 19th December, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P. Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 88 of 1999 in the matter of Industrial dispute was between the workman and the concerns known as (i) M/s Kesarwani Sheetalaya Soraon. Allahabad and (ii) M/s Sangam Cold Storage, Soraon, Allahabad.3. The respondent No. 3 the workman concerned raised an industrial dispute against the aforesaid two Cold storages claiming that he was appointed orally on 10.1.1995 on the post of Store Keeper in M/s Sangam Cold Storage, Soraon, Allahabad. He claimed that his appointment was oral and that both the Cold storages were run by the member of the same family. He also claimed that his services were orally terminated on 27.6.1997 by M/s Sangam Cold Storage i.e. employer No. 2.4. The conciliation proceedings having failed the matter was referre...
Chhanne and ors. Vs. Shobhnath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC2042
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs/petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.11.2005, passed by the District Judge, Allahabad, whereby the revision has been allowed and after setting aside the order of the trial court, directions have been given to the said court to dispose of amendment application afresh in view of the orders passed earlier by the Additional District Judge in Civil Revision No. 384 of 1999.3. The defendants/respondents sought some amendment to be incorporated in the written statement and for that purpose application was moved. That application was earlier disposed of vide order 2.4.1999, by the trial court and was rejected against which a Revision No. 384 of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2003, was filed and the matter was remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh. Thereafter the trial court disposed of the amendment applicati...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary of Ministry of Defence (Departm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3480
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. It appears that Dr. Vishwa Vir Singh (plaintiff-respondent in the present Second Appeal) was appointed as Assistant Surgeon, Grade I, in the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur, as per the appointment letter dated 27.6.1969.2. It further appears that the services of the said Dr. Vishwa Veer Singh (plaintiff-respondent) were terminated by the order dated 5.4.1982.3. It further appears that the said Dr. Vishwa Veer Singh (plaintiff-respondent) filed a Suit , interalia, praying for declaration that the termination of his services was illegal, invalid and void , and that he continued to be in service and was entitled to all wages, emoluments and other benefits from the date of order of termination.4. The said Suit was registered as Suit No. 561 of 1982.5. It further appears that by the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1984, the Trial Court (XIth Additional Munsif, Kanpur) decreed the said Suit , declaring the said termination order dated 5.4.1982 as illegal, and further dec...
Bhulai Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3474
R.P. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. None appears for opposite party No. 3.3. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 7.8.1980, passed by Consolidation Officer, Patti, district Pratapgarh and the order dated 28.8.1984, passed by Deputy Director (Consolidation), Patti, Pratapgarh, rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation for Condonation of Delay In filing of the objection under Section 9A(2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).4. Dispute relates to plot No. 124 measuring 3 bigha, 16 biswa 5 dhur situated In village Kashipur, pargana and tehsil Patti, district Pratapgarh. Opposite party No. 3, Smt. Dhanraji (since deceased) was the recorded tenure holder of the said plot. When the village came under consolidation sometime before 1971 and the relevant forms were issued to the chak-holders asking ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: [2008]297ITR352(All)
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 31, 2005, in respect of the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. Since all the appeals raise a common question for determination and, therefore, we are disposing of all the appeals by a common order.3. The facts, which have given rise to the aforesaid cases, in short, are that the assessee had been submitting his returns of income throughout all the aforesaid years, in which he had disclosed certain income as 'agricultural income'. These returns were accepted. However, the Assessing Officer while dealing with the assessment year 1997-98, recorded a finding that income of Rs. 1.80 lakhs which has been declared as agricultural income was not agricultural income and, therefore, treated it as income from other sources. In appeal, the Commissioner of I...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »