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.
Ajay Tiwari Vs. Hriday Ram Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3546
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. This is a first appeal from order under Section 6A of the Courts Fees Act read with Section 104, C.P.C. against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 13, Allahabad dated 4.8.2005 passed in Original Suit No. 674 of 2004, Ajay Tiwari v. Hriday Ram Tiwari and Ors. The court below by the said order has decided issue No. 2 with regard to valuation and payment of court fees and has held that the suit has rightly been valued at Rs. 10 lacs but the plaintiff/appellant has not paid proper court fees.2. The plaintiff/appellant Ajay Tiwari filed Original Suit No. 674 of 2004, Ajay Tiwari v. Hriday Ram Tiwari and Ors. in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad for declaring the sale deed dated 26.6.2004 registered on 5.7.2004 in respect of House No. 18/25, Mundera Bazar, Allahabad and executed by Hriday Ram Tiwari defendant No. 1 in favour of Ramesh Kumar Kushwaha and others, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to be declared as null and ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Yadu Raj NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)437; [2006]286ITR564(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The present appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, dated August 11, 1998.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:3. The present appeal relates to the imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1977-78. The respondent-asses-see was assessed to wealth-tax up to the assessment year 1976-77. Thereafter he had not filed any return. The notice under Section 17 of the Act was issued to him but no return was filed. Notices under Section 16(4) of the Act were issued fixing various dates but the respondent-assessee did not appear before the assessing authority. The assessment was completed on March 16, 1988, under Section 16(5) of the Act on the net wealth of Rs. 27,52,700 and penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in the course of asses...
Ajay Tiwari Vs. Hirday Ram Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All333
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. This is a First Appeal From Order under Section 6A of the Courts-fees Act read with Section 104, C.P.C. against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 13, Allahabad dated 4-8-2005 passed in Original Suit No. 674 of 2004 Ajay Tiwari v. Hriday Ram Tiwari and Ors. The Court below by the said order has decided Issue No. 2 with regard to valuation and payment of Court-fees and has held that the suit has rightly been valued at Rs. 10.0 lacs but the plaintiff/appellant has not paid proper Court-fees.2. The plaintiff/appellant Ajay Tiwari filed Original Suit No. 674 of 2004 Ajay Tiwari v. Hriday Ram Tiwari and Ors. in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad for declaring the sale deed dated 26-6-2004 registered on 5-7-2004 in respect of House No. 18/25, Mundera Bazar, Allahabad and executed by Hriday Ram Tiwari defendant No. 1 in favour of Ramesh Kumar Kushwaha and Ors., defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to be declared as null and ...
In Re: Pratibha Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4285
R.K. Rastogi, J.1. This is an application moved on behalf of Smt. Pratibha Saxena for recalling the order dated 6.4.2006 passed by me in Criminal Misc. Restoration Application No. 55171 of 2006 and the order dated 17.2.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. Recall Application No. 155441 of 2005 and the order dated 27.7.2005 passed in Crl. Misc. Transfer Application No. 165 of 2005, Hari Prakash Saxena v. Smt. Pratibha Saxena.2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that Hari Prakash Saxena had filed Transfer Application No. 165 of 2005 in this Court for transfer of Misc. Case No. 840 of 2003 and Misc. Case No. 1025 of 2003 arising out of case No. 1050 of 1998, Pratibha Saxena v. Hari Prakash Saxena pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to any Court outside Shahjahanpur.3. Since none was present for Smt. Pratibha Saxena on the date of hearing of this application, it was allowed by me ex parte vide order dated 27.7.2005 and the aforesaid cases were o...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. Vth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3624
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord moved an application Under Section 12 read with Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It appears from the record that on 4.3.1999 an application was moved by the respondent No. 3 tenant that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings Under Section 12/16 of Act No. 13 of 1972.3. The trial court vide order dated 14.7.1999, rejected the application dated 4.3.1999 holding that he does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceedings, which was challenged before the revisional court. The respondent tenant challenged the aforesaid order vide Revision Application No. 83 of 1999 Under Section 18 of the Act. The Vth Additional District Judge, Bijnor, vide Impugned order dated 18.10.2000 allowed the revision filed by respondent No, 3 against order dated 14...
Sukh Lal Son of Late Manglawa and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolid ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4153
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda by which a revision preferred by Opp. Party No. 3 was allowed declaring her Bhumidhar of Plot Nos. 333 and 369 of Khata No. 195 to the extent of one half share.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 3.3. Learned Counsel for petitioners urged that Opp. Party No. 3 was not the widow of Holla, Son of Babauna and she did not inherit property of Holla. He further urged that petitioners purchased land in dispute through a sale deed dated 14.7.1972 from Jauhariya, who was recorded in the revenue record. It was further urged that sale deed was executed by Jauhariya in 1972 and Opp. Party No. 3 has not claimed any right in the land in dispute at that time. He also urged that the order passed against Jauhariya by consolidation authorities which was affirmed by the judgment of this Court dated 9.4.1987 rendered in Wr...
Om Prakash Kapoor and ors. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4163
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Present revision is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 14.7.2000 passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 1993, whereby it decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendants and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month for the period 1.5.1992 to 31.8.1992, and thereafter, for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,300 per month alongwith the cost of the notice till the date of delivery of the possession of the disputed shop.2. Smt. Urmila Devi, opposite party No. 1 instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 1993 against Smt. Pushpa Kapoor (opposite party No. 2 in the present revision) and Smt. Sheela Kapoor, who died during pendency of suit and her heirs and legal representatives were substituted. The present revision is on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Sheela Kapoor.3. Suit giving rise to the above revision was filed by Smt. Urmila Devi, claiming herself owner and landlady of the disputed sho...
Virendra Singh Pal Vs. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC1009
ORDERA.N. Verma, J.1. I have heard Sri J.N. Pandey, earned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N.K. Shukla, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3.2. The instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2006, passed by the opposite party No. 1, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner, i.e., the tenant against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2006. passed by the opposite party No. 2, allowing the application of the landlord, i.e. opposite party No. 3, under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that after making submission on merits before the opposite party No. 1, the earned Counsel for the petitioner succumbed on the question of maintainability of revision and requested the court below that as the tenant had been running the shop as a photographer so sufficient time be allowed to him to vacate the property in dispute. The request made by the petitio...
Shrishti Traders Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST389(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 9,2006 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.2. The applicant was registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was carrying on the business of buying and selling of PVC pipes and pipe fittings. For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, applicant had filed the quarterly returns and disclosed the total turnover at Rs. 14,53,70,841.41 and Rs. 15,96,47,733.36 respectively. The applicant had not disclosed any taxable turnover and had not admitted any liability of tax. For both the assessment years, assessing authority, issued the notices to the applicant to appear. Show-cause notices were also issued requiring the applicant to show cause. The applicant could not file the list of the purchases before the assessing authority nor could get those purchases verified. The applicant...
P.D. Seth Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3549
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The above three revisions are at the instance of the tenant, Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, against the orders passed by the Judge Small Causes, at the various stages of S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1994.2. Smt. Krishna Devi, the land lady instituted the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1994 against the tenant who is applicant in the revision for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment with respect to the premises No. 8/58-E Arya Nagar, Kanpur. The suit was filed on the pleas inter alia that the tenancy of the defendant tenant has been terminated by means of a notice on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant tenant failed to pay the rent in spite of service of the notice nor he vacated the disputed premises, hence the suit.3. The suit was contested by the defendant tenant on the pleas inter alia that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is not due and that the requisite deposit has been made by him Under Section 20 (4) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »