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.
Smt. Tara Devi Wife of Shri Shobh Nath Srivastava and Shobh Nath Sriva ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC322
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No. 28 of 1976 for mandatory injunction to remove constructions raised by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the land in dispute and for pendentelite and future damages. The suit was dismissed with costs by IVth Civil Judge, Varanasi on 30.8.1977. The Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1977 was allowed decreeing the suit on 17.11.1978.2. I have heard Shri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the appellants. No one appears for the respondents.3. The suit was filed with the allegations that Smt. Nauvjaddi Kunwar-defendant No. 1 purchased the land from several persons in village Karaudi Pargana Dehat Amanat District Varanasi for establishing a residential colony. She divided the land in various plots for construction of residential houses. Some portions of the land were reserved for road and park. A lay out plan was prepared in which the land reserved for park was demarcated and delineated with 'red' and 'blue' hatched lines. The park and road were mean...
Smt. Bhuri Wife of Late RiyazuddIn and ors. Vs. Smt. Shobha Rani Wife ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC234
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma for the revisionists and Sri A. B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.2. The order under challenge in this revision is passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby it has been directed that before the release of the awarded money in favour of the claimants, the owner of the vehicle/insured shall furnish security of the said amount before the court.3. The learned Counsel for the revisionists, while citing the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. : AIR2004SC1340 , has tried to emphasise that in pursuance to the award given by the court below, the opposite-party insurer has already made the deposit of the awarded money and the release of that money in favour of the claimants cannot be made subject to the insured, owner of the vehicle furnishing security. It is for the insurer/opposite-party to recover that amount from the owner in accordance w...
Ram Saran Das Tandon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(All)246; [2006]286ITR419(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Income-tax Reference No. 177 of 1989, which relates to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1982-83 has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act':Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding income of house property 64, Lajpatnagar, Varanasi, assessable in the assessee's hand ?2. Whereas in I. T. R. No. 177 of 1991, which is at the instance of the Revenue and which relates to the assessment year 1983-84, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Act:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from the house property 64, Lajpat Nagar, Varanasi was assessable in the hands of Smt. Vimlawati Tandon, the wife ...
Akhilesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3574
A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Q.H. Siddiqui, advocate on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. The controversy is no more res integra. Petitioners are owners of rickshaws and let out their rickshaws on hire. Their grievance is that they should not be fastened with liability to pay Rs. 161 per rickshaw per year, as licence fee, and that they are prepared to pay Rs. 75 per rickshaw.3. In Writ Petition No. 61911 of 2005, Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court, considered aforesaid issue and passed order dated 26.4.2006; copy of the said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A statement is made before us that this order has not been challenged and has become final.4. Relevant para 2 reads:We have heard counsel for the petitioner, the standing counsel and Sri Q.H. Siddiqui for the respondents. Sri Q.H. Siddiqui made a statement before t...
In Re: Jaypee Greens Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: [2007]74SCL118(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. The company petition seeks to confirm the scheme of amalgamation, under Rule 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, of Jaypee Greens Limited, the transferor company with Jaiprakash Associates Limited, the transferee company. The full description of the companies is given in the array of parties.2. A company application No. 10 of 2006 was filed on April 19, 2006, pro- posing a scheme of amalgamation annexing therewith the board resolutions of both the companies. By order dated April 19, 2006, the transferee company was directed to convene separate meetings of equity shareholders and creditors, and the transferor company to convene the meeting of its creditors to consider the proposed scheme of amalgamation. By the same order dated April 19, 2006, the meetings of the preference and equity shareholders of the transferor company were dispensed with on its application annexing therewith the affidavits of consent of each of the shareholders of the company to the propose...
Cit Vs. Vijay Constructions
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(All)105
1. These are four appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT') on 24-12-2004 in respect of different assessment years consisting of 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessee is a registered partnership firm, which is engaged in the work of civil construction in Public Works department. The returns were filed for the relevant assessment years. The books of account were, however, rejected by the assessing officer. Consequently, proceedings under Section 145(3) were taken following the proceedings under Section 144. The following two substantial questions of law have been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the revenue; (i) whether the determination of rate of profit ITAT the rate of 5 per cent by the Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals) as against the flat rate of 8 per cent, as given by the assessing officer, and further reducing the sanle to 4 per cent by the ITAT was ...
Pentex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST873(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated January 20, 2006 relating to assessment year 1999-2000.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its head office at Bharat Velvet Compound, Safed Pool, Vasanji Road, Mumbai. It is claimed that the applicant entered into a contract for design supply, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of L.P.G. monitoring system with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited in U.P. for execution of works contract. The applicant has established an office at 113/20, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the course of assessment proceedings under Section 7 of the Act,...
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Shyam Sunder Son of Shri Parashu Ram ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3561
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Present appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 8 of 1989 and is directed against the award of Civil Court dated 24lh August, 1991, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ballia, whereby he granted compensation of 0.09 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, out of which claimant/respondent No. 1 is entitled to 3/8 of it; the compensation for trees and construction at Rs. 97,500/- and damages under Clauses (4) and (5) of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs. 50,000/- together with interest and solatium etc.2. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the acquiring body has preferred the above appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. The land was acquired for the benefit of the appellant by issuing a notification dated 8th March, 1980 under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, read with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. By means of the aforesaid notification 0.9 acres of land i...
Vijay Shanker Rai Son of Shri Anant Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3543
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Miss Anuradha Sundaram, holding brief of Shri Anil Bhushan and Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has sought a relief of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23rd July, 2003, by which, his services have been dismissed by the respondents. The petitioner has also sought a relief of writ of certiorari to quash the resolution of the Board dated 10th December, 2003 constituted under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 known as the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board.3. The petitioner was appointed as a sales man under the U.P. Consumer Co-operative Federation Limited and his services are governed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. He was appointed in the year 1978. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order-dated 6.11.97 when he was working at Fatehpur. He had been charged for as many as 24 charges...
Moazzam Ali, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Vs. State of U.P. Through Special ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3603
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by the petitioner virtually for the purpose of direction not to give effect of the letter dated 13th December, 2000, being Annexure-5 to the writ petition, and for quashing the departmental order dated 18th January, 2001, being Annexure-7 to the writ petition, and order in connection with election proceeding etc..2. The writ petitioner was a candidate of the election notified for the local Gram Panchayat. The constituency was reserved for the people of backward class. The petitioner was a candidate under the scheduled category of 'Banjara'. The petitioner had filed his nomination after obtaining requisite certificate from the Tehsildar. But his nomination wascancelled. The plea of cancellation as taken by the authority is that the petitioner is Muslim by religion, therefore, his candidature as 'Banjara' can not be accepted. 'Banjara' belong to Hindu community only. Initially by virtue of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Schedu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »