Allahabad Court March 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.
Chhotey Lal S/O Parmanand Vs. State of U.P. and Smt. Rati Basor W/O Ha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2265
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Dubey advocate holding brief of Sri B.N. Singh advocate , learned Counsel for the applicant, at a great length and the learned AGA on behalf of respondent State.2. The applicant has prayed for quashing of proceeding of complaint case being complaint case No. 164 of 2005 Smt. Rati v. Chotey Lal and Anr. under Sections 376/504/506/323 IPC and 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act PS Nadigaon, District Jalaun pending before Judicial magistrate Orai District Jalaun.3. In the nut shell, the allegation of the complainant Smt. Rati is that she is a resident of village Bahkhrol and is a poor women of scheduled tribe Bachor. Her husband Harmukh was doing the work a labourer in village Richora, Gwalior. On 30.3.96 at 8 AM, the complainant Smt. Rati was going to her husband when Chotey lal , armed with a gun and Ram Babu ,both resident of her village, all of a sudden came from behind, caught hold of her from behind, took her to a drench in village Arjunpura which is near the way an...
Allied Agencies Through Its Karta Sri Sharat Seth Son of Late Shri Bai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC551(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 30th August, 1999 relating to the assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. Dispute relates to the taxability of canvas cloth made of jute. According to the applicant, canvas cloth made of jute is exempted under Notification No. ST-II-303/X-89-7 (5)-88-U.P. Act-XV/48-Order-89, dated 1.2.1989 under the entry 'canvas cloth, tarpaulins and water-proof cloth'. Assessing authority rejected the claim of the applicant and taxed so-called canvas cloth made of jute at the rate of 6.6 percent under the entry 'Jute and Hemps goods' of Notification No. ST-II-7551/X-7 (23)-83-U.P. Act XV-48-Order-85, dated 31.10.1985. Tribunal held that the canvas cloth made of jute is jute cloth and, therefore, it is not exempted under the notification No. ST-II/3033/X-89-7 (5)-88-U.P. Act-XV/48-Order-89, dated 1.2.1989.3. Heard learned Counsel...
Mohd. Shahid Son of Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Additional District Judge, (Cour ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1670
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by me on 23.3.2004 in respect of eviction decree and it was allowed in respect of arrears of rent. The findings of both the courts below to the effect that rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month were reversed by me and it was held by me that rate of rent was Rs. 50/-per month. Regarding the plea of tenant in respect of benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 I held as follows in paragraph 8 of my judgement dated 23.3.2004:Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to show as to whether petitioner complied with the provisions. Section 20(4) of the Act even if rate of rent is taken to be Rs. 50 - per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that complete deposits as required by Section 20(4) of the Act were made even if rate of rent is taken to be Rs. 50/- per month. Hence there is no question of giving benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to the tenant-petitioner.Thereafter this re...
Bhagwana Singh and ors. Vs. Gaon Sabha Village Paijaniya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1684
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition challenges the order of trial court as well as the appellate court whereby the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has been rejected.3. Learned counsel contends that the land in question was subject of an allotment by Gaon Sabha about which certain lease amount was paid by the petitioners and they continue in possession. The proceedings started against the petitioners under Section 122B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were misconceived and beyond ''jurisdiction as the land in question is 'abadi' land and the jurisdiction of Asstt. Collector under Section 122B of the Act, does not extend over such abadi land. Learned counsel in the aforesaid context has further added that the suit for permanent injunction naturally involves the declaration of title over the disputed property and in such suit the orders of the authorities, pas...
Smt. Tribeni Bai Vs. Munsif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1673
S.U. Khan, J.1 Both these cases have been filed by the landlady. Writ petition is directed against order, dated 20.9.1982, passed by Munsif, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1981 under Section 30(2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 permitting the tenant, Hindustan Alluminium Corporation Limited (HACL) to deposit rent until decision regarding entitlement of the person to receive the rent as landlord. Revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 14.5.1984, passed by J.S.C.C./Vth Additional District Judge, Mirzapur, dismissing the suit for eviction on the ground of default filed by landlady Tribeni Bai against tenant H.A.C.L. being S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1983.2. There is no dispute that in case rent deposited by the tenant under Section 30(2) of the Act is taken to be validly deposited then tenant would not be liable to eviction on the ground of default.3. Smt Tribeni Bai let out the accommodation in dispute to HACL through lease deed dated 1.1.1960 at the rate of Rs. 250 per month, wh...
Ankur Technocrates Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST679(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 June, 2005 by which the appeal filed by the applicant against the order of the Divisional Level Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DLC') dated 22nd February, 2004 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the DLC.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has set up a Unit for manufacturing of electrical Wire and Cables. The production was started on 13.11.1997 and date of sale was 17.11.1997. Applicant had filed exemption application before the Divisional Level Committee claiming exemption under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on the ground that unit was new unit as defined under Section 4-A of the Act. The Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 12.8.1999 rejected the application. Applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dated 14.2.2000 set aside the...
Dharmendra Singh Yadav S/O Sri Jitendra Singh Yadav, Block Development ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC3001; [2006(110)FLR567]
V.M. Sahai and Barkat Ali Zaidi, JJ.1. The petitioner IS A Block Development Officer and has been suspended by respondent No. 1, the State Government, vide order dated 15.2.2006 , which is Annexure - 1 to the record. He seeks an interim order from this Court staying his suspension till final decision of his writ petition by this Court.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for all the 4 respondents in this writ petition at the admission stage itself.3. The primary reason for his suspension by the State Government is that he failed to effectively and efficiently perform his duties in planting under the scheme in this regard which was put into operation by the State Government like earlier years. His work rate was found to be 2.37% of the required standard.4. Argument had been advanced from the side of the petitioner that the Rules provide for the suspension on the charges where major penalty can be imposed and this lapse was not a charge...
Suresh Rai Son of Sri Sankatha Rai Vs. Assistant Regional Manager, U.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1019]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has sought relief of quashing the order dated 17.6.2004 passed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi Region, Varanasi appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.3. It appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9642 of 2004, inter alia, that by punishment order dated 29.4.1999 his annual increment was stopped for a period of one year without future effect but in spite of expiry of the period of one ear, i.e., from 31.3.2000 his increments are not being given to him. The Court vide judgment dated 10.3.2004 directed the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law from the date of submission of representation of the order. Consequently the Regional Manager passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2004.4. By the impugned order the Regional Manager after considering the circumstances in which four enquiries had been ...
Kamla Prasad Son of Sunder Ram, Vs. the District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1977
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition was allowed on 19.2.19852. Initially trial court had decreed the suit of petitioners for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, which was filed against respondents 2 to 7, holding that petitioners were landlords and respondents 2 to 7 were tenants. A revision was filed by Lalloo, respondent No. 2 against the said judgment and decree which was allowed by District Judge, Allahabad on 21.4.1980 (Civil Revision No. 159 of 1979 Lalloo v. Kamla Prasad). This writ petition was directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Revisional Court. Through judgment and order dated 19.2.1985 passed in this writ petition, judgment and order passed by the Revisional court was substantially reversed and it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. However, the matter was remanded to the revisional court to decide only the question of default.3. Thereafter this application was filed on 16.9.1985 without serving copy ...
Hanuman Prasad Ojha and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2597
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining the following reliefs:i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR in Case No. 381 dated 18.10.2004 G.R. No. 2711/04 under Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata & orders dated 15.10.2004 & 11.2.2005 passed by respondent No. 5;ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners on the basis of the FIR dated 18.10.2004;iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to transfer the Case No. 381 under Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 IPC to State of U.P.;iv. issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.v. Award costs to the petitioners from the contesting respondents.2. Parties have exchanged their respective af...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »