Allahabad Court June 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.
Ashok Prakashan (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All284; 2006(3)AWC2573
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. This first appeal from order under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code is against an ex parte injunction dated 29.5.2006, passed by the Incharge District Judge, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1 of 2006 restraining the defendant-appellants from printing, publishing and selling the books, detailed at the foot of plaint and from using the name G. Ram or J. Ram,2. The brief facts, as enumerated in the plaint is, that the plaintiffs' father G. Ram and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. The plaintiffs father had written several books which were published by a firm known as Ashok Prakashan, in which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the partners. It is alleged that the appellant's father was also a partner in the said firm. However, there was no deed in writing but the plaintiffs mother Sheela Devi was a partner in the firm and that an agreement to this effect was executed in writing. The plaintiff contended that his father died on 24.2.2004 and that the plai...
Umang Agarwal Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: (2008)110ITD391(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT Under Section 263 directing therein to the ITO to include a sum of Rs. 53,27,812/- in the block assessment being the income declared by the assessee in the regular return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 on the ground that the said return was filed late and hence it is non-est.2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the business and residence premises of the assessee on 4.9.2002. Block assessment Under Section 158 BC was passed on 30.9.2004 on an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,48,94,580/- Therefore ld. CIT issued a notice Under Section 263 on 19.4.2005 wherein he mentioned that assessee had filed a regular return for the A.Y. 2002-03 on 1.9.2004 disclosing an income of Rs. 53,27,812/-. The ld. CIT noted that the said return of income was not filed by the assessee during the time allowed Under Section 139 and was, therefore, non-est. He was of the view that while completing...
In Re: Secretary, Hight Court Bar Association
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2608
Rakesh Tewari, S.S. Kulshrestha, Prakash Krishna, D.P. Singh and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. This Bench has been constituted in an unprecedented situation in the history of this High Court where the Executive organ of the State, namely, His Excellency the Governor's Secretariat has refused to acknowledge and implement the transfer and suspension order of a Judicial Officer of the subordinate judiciary of this State and which issue has been brought to the notice of this Court on the judicial side by way of a public interest petition moved by the learned Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, the concerned officer was inducted into the judicial services of the State, after having been selected under the relevant rules. The records indicate that in the year 1994, he came to be appointed as Additional Legal Advisor in the Secretariat of His Excellency the Governor. This appointment was by way of deputation. The deputation of such an officer, according to t...
Sudarsha Avasthi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC736
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Since, in the present writ petition no factual dispute has been raised by the parties' counsel, hence, with the consent of parties' counsel, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at admission stage.2. Feeling aggrieved with the unauthorised use of red or blue lights, hooters and plying of vehicle in the State of U. P. having safety glasses inside window without having any visual transmission of light and using of plaque or board or plates indicating post, office or designation by private and Government bodies, the petitioner a public spirited citizen had approached this Court under extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Attention has been invited by the petitioner that it has become status symbol in the State of U. P. to ply vehicle on road in violation of provisions contained in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short hereinafter referred as the Act) and the provisions contained in Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (in short herein...
inder Setia S/O Late Jagat Singh (In Jail) Vs. Central Excise Departme ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: 2008(224)ELT385(All)
K.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajai Singh learned Counsel for the Central Government representing the opposite party No. 1 and learned A.G.A.2. The brief fact, as stated in the affidavit, is that the applicant is Director in M/S Surya Herbal Limited situated at Noida. It is further stated that the company manufactures two products namely 'Roop Amruta' and 'Daant Pari'. On information received by the opposite party No. 1 regarding the evasion of the excise duty, the factory premise was searched on 28.3.2006 and stock of the products was detained. No F.I.R. was lodged for the said offence, but the authorities of opposite party No. 1 registered this case on own giving crime No. 2 of 2006 under Section 4/9A/9AA/9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') and Section 420/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code. The applicant was also arrested and copy of arrest memo was served, which is Annexure No.1 to the affi...
Amit Kumar Agrawal Son of Sri Rama Kant Agrawal, Recron Synthetics Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR720]
A.P. Sahi, J.1. This petition calls in question the scope and extent of the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, concerning ad hoc engagements against class III posts, in the subordinate judiciary. The petitioners had initially preferred this writ petition for a mandamus seeking continuance on ad hoc basis against the posts on which they had been engaged in the district judgeship of Auraiya and have later on by way of an amendment, assailed the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 25.11.2005 whereby the proposal of the learned District Judge, Auraiya, as forwarded and recommended by Hon'ble the Administrative Judge for continuing the petitioners has been rejected.2. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Krishna was heard on behalf of the petitioners and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been very ably defended on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by Sri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate.3. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the Respondent No. 1.4...
Haribansh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR334]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.P. Singh appears for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner-applicant filed, writ petition claiming that under the existing Rules the age of retirement of the petitioner is 58 years but a decision has been taken to extend age of retirement to 60 years and the proposal has been sent for approval and pending before the Government for extending the age of superannuation, but without awaiting for amendment in the rules, the authorities are retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years i.e. w.e.f. 31.1.2006. Since under the existing Rules and Regulations, applicable to the service of the petitioner, the age of retirement was 58 years, this Court found that so long as Rules are not amended, the authorities are well within their right to retire petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide judgment...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shivji Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC238
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 997 of 2005-ShivJi Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., is impugned in this writ petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Railway Administration to act upon the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), New Delhi. Entitlement by way of refund was to be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. Union of India alongwith Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), Head Quarters Office North Central, Allahabad and Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur are the petitioners in this writ petition.3. The controversy revolves round the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager / Assistant Commercial Manager whereby the refund in full was allowed under Rule 213.14 Part-I, Volume-I of Coach...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›