Allahabad Court August 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.
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and ors. Vs. Xith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC390
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri S.N. Verma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Malviya learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. C. Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 3 to 10. The respondents No. 11 to 19 are alleged to be proforma respondents and therefore, notices need not be sent to them. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage itself.2. The petitioners who are tenants seek quashing of the order dated 1.9.1998, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Agra and the judgment and order dated 14.8.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Agra, whereby the application made by the landlord under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act), 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) has been allowed. Facts of the case as brought forward are that Smt. Vidyawati Devi was owner of the property bearing No. ...
Dr. Alok Kumar Vs. Sarabjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3827
ORDERUmeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision challenges the order of court below dated 27.5.2006, whereby the Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been decided in the negative and against the revisionist petitioner.3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the decision on issue No. 1 relates to applicant's plea for staying the proceeding of the present S.C.C. suit filed subsequent to the Regular Suit No. 307 of 2003 between the same parties.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the regular Suit No. 307/2003 has been filed by the defendant of this suit claiming himself as tenant in the premises and the opposite party while defending that suit has come with a case that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiff of that suit claiming as tenant has occupied the premises in illegal manner. It is also submitted that in the subsequent suit, which is for the recovery of arrears of rent and ...
Shrawan Kumar Son of Sri Kamata Prasad Vs. U.P. Institutional Service ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR388]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri M.P. Gupta for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Singh for respondent No. 1 and Sri R.S. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.2. This petition is directed against an order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been refused.3. Pivotal facts relevant for the decision of this petition are that eleven posts of class IV employees in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mirzapur were advertised on 23.6.2004. Petitioner and others applied and the petitioner was duly selected as shown in the select list published on 5th July, 2004. However, the respondent Service Board refused to grant the approval on the ground that the cut off date with respect to the age of candidates was fixed against the provisions of law.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the objection raised on behalf of the Board was highly technical and since the petitioner was otherwise qualified, the approval ...
Londu Lal Raghubir Prasad Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2008]298ITR37(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the addition of Rs. 19,000/-?(2) Whether in view of the fact that the matter related to the addition of Rs. 5,000/- was set aside the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c)?(3) Whether the finding of the Tribunal was based on the material placed before it?(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in treating the unexplained amount as concealed income and consequently in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows:The applicant is ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR106(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding the amount of Rs. 2,75,000 received by the assessee was not its income and should have been deleted?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows.4. The respondent assessee is a co-operative society and had a number of branches and carried on sale and purchase of various commodities. During the assessment year, the assessee, co-operative society received a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 from the Government of Uttar Pradesh for disbursement to its bhandars to meet the expenses of the salary of certain employees of those bhandars, which otherwise were not viable units. The respondent-assessee, accordin...
Moti Lal Vs. Smt. Chandrakali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC820
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard earned Counsel for the parlies and perused the record.2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in House No.36/31, G-1, Ram Mohan Ka Hata, Kanpur Nagar since 1975. The house was purchased by Smt. Chandrakali, the sole respondent in the writ petition through registered sale deed dated 10.8.1998 from the previous landlord Sri Banshi Lal.3. A notice dated 9.4.1999 was sent by the landlady for arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 25,840 as well as ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he was an unauthorized occupant.4. The petitioner denied the allegations stating that he had sent six months' rent from September, 1998 which was refused by the landlady, hence he deposited the same in Court under Section 30 of the Rent Control Act in Case No. 46270/99 Moti Lal v. Smt. Chandrakali, and since then he is depositing the rent in Court regularly month to month.5. The respondent-landlady moved an application under Sections 12 and 16-lb of U.P. Act No. 13 of ...
Kesarwani and Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ174All
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.2. By the impugned order dated August 4, 2006 passed under Section 7A read with Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, a liability of payment of over Rs. 19 lacs has been imposed on the petitioner. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed without considering as to whether the petitioner is a manufacturer of tobacco or not, and as such, whether the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the petitioner firm. It has further been submi...
Allahabad Bank and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC553
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5274 (MB) of 2006 submits that the instant petition may be treated as an application for interim relief in Writ Petition No. 5614 (MB) of 2002. Since the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 5274 (MB) of 2006 is respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 5614 (MB) of 2002 and a detailed order was passed on 6.3.2006 we treat this writ petition No. 5274 (MB) of 2006 as an application for interim relief in Writ Petition No. 5614 (MB) of 2002.2. In compliance of the order passed by this Court Mr. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has placed before us the status report which is taken on record. He prays for and is granted two months' further time to complete the inquiry and submit the report before the next date.3. Mr. Vinai Shankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved the application for dismissal of the writ petition. On 6.3...
Mohd. Ayyub Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1628
A.N. Varma, J.1. The dispute in the present petition centres around shop situate in building 512/697 Ka, Blada Road, Nishatganj, Lucknow, of which the opposite party No. 2 is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 20. The proceedings for ejectment of the tenant from over the shop in question was initiated by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to be as 'Act') on the ground that the same was required by him to establish his son Mohd. Islam, in a tailoring business. It was alleged that the family consisted of himself, his wife, four daughters, one son, daughter-in-law, four grand-daughters, in total twelve members. It was further alleged that apart from the shop in question the opposite party No. 2 had no other accommodation wherein his son Mohd. Islam could be settled for doing tailoring business.2. The case set up by the landlord was de...
Jaiveer, Son of Late Sri Surajmal Vs. Raghunandan S/O Sri Surajbhan an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC347
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri A.N. Srivastava, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsels appearing for the plaintiff/appellant and Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsels appearing for the defendant/respondents.2. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today along with copy of the plaint and written statement, and also the order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in civil revision No. 27 of 2004.3. This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in civil appeal No. 25 of 2005 arising out of the original suit No. 53 of 2000, Jaiveer v. Raghunandan and Anr. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2005.4. The plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of an area of 200 square yards of Khasra No. 244 claiming his ownership and possession for over more than forty years. Claim of the plaintiff/appellant is that his ancesto...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »