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.
Chandra Prakash Agrawal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(All)505; [2006]287ITR172(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners who belong to the same group, have challenged the notices issued to them under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the various assessment years beginning from 2000-01 to 2002-03, which vary in each of the petitions. As all these petitions raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 504 of 2006, filed by Chandra Pra-kash Agrawal, is being treated as the leading petition. We are, therefore, giving the facts of this petition. Except for the assessment years and the assessment orders having been passed either under Section 143(1)(a) or under Section 143(3) of the Act, the facts are common in all the petitions.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:According to the petitioner, Chandra Prakash Agrawal, he is a partner of M/s. Sri Ra...
Bansal Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs. Satya NaraIn Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3829
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This revision challenges the order of the court below dated 17.12.2005, rejecting the applicant's prayer for dismissing the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.2. The applicant-revisionist prayed for dismissing the suit and rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that the suit being one for decree of specific performance of contract of sale based on an unregistered agreement, was not maintainable and the plaint be rejected without further lingering the proceedings of the suit.3. This petition was resisted by the other side and the court below after hearing the parties found that as the suit was at its final stage and the- parties have entered into evidence, this matter may be taken up at the stage of final disposal itself and should be decided alongwith entire issues involved in the suit. Accordingly, the prayer was refused.4. The learned senior advocate Sri Ravi Kant appearing for the revisionist as assisted by Sri J. Nagar has tried ...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Manager, Jh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR513]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Shri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) the petitioner and Shri D.N. Dubey, learned standing counsel appearing for contesting respondent No. 1.2. The writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 16.7.1988 holding that punishment of dismissal of the workman (Shri Laxmi Kant Dwivedi) from the post of Conductor on the charges of carrying passengers without ticket is harsh and disproportionate and thereby setting it aside, it has granted relief of back wages to the extent of 1/4* of the salary to the workmen.3. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the workman, late Laxmi Kant Dwivedi, was appointed as Ticket Conductor at Mahoba Depot of Corporation in October 1990. While he was discharging his duty at bus No. U.P. 93/2349 running between Kanpur and Khajuraho, the aforesaid bus was checked by Senior Station Incharge...
Jafar Mian S/O Sadaq Mian Vs. Smt. Qaiser Jahan Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All5
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.Smt. Farooq Zamani Begum, the owner of the property in dispute entered into an agreement of sale with Smt. Qaisar Jahan Begum, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,42,000/-. Part payment was made and the sale deed was required to be executed within one month of the conclusion of the pending litigation in respect of the property in dispute. Instead of executing a sale d eed in favour of the plaintiff, Smt. Farooq Zamani Begum executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner-Jafar Mian selling th share of the house In question. Consequently, a Suit No. 59 of 1988 was filed for the specific performance of the agreement. The said suit was decreed by a judgment dated 14.7.1992. An execution Case No. 9 of 1992 was filed and, in this execution proceeding, a sale deed was executed by the Court on 4.1.1994, which was ultimately registered on 13.5.1997.2. The decree-holder, respondent No. 1 filed a second execution application praying for the possession of the property...
Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ200
ORDERShiv Shanker, J.1. This criminal revision has been preferred against Judgment and order dated 24-6-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2006, Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. in case crime No. 59 of 2006, under Sections 392, 411 and 120B, I. P. C. whereby the criminal appeal was dismissed the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed.2. Brief facts, arising out of this revision, are that Head Constable Rajveer Singh lodged F. I, R. against two unknown miscreants on 23-3-2006 at about 12.15 p.m. under Section 392, I. P. C. stating that Rs. 61.000/ - were snatched from him by two unknown miscreants. Three miscreants were apprehended by the police along with looted motorcycle upon which he was pillion rider upon motor cycle. After his arrest, he was sent to judicial custody.3. He was declared juvenile by board. His bail application was refused by the board as well as appellate Court.4. Hence, this revision is filed.5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist and l...
Kamal Corporation Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST157(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 Tribunal dated May 29, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2000-01 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The applicant claimed to be a purchasing agent, made purchases of wheat for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal for Rs. 45,67,160. The applicant claimed to have maintained the books of account in the form of cash book, ledger, purchase order register, 6-R, 9-R, satti bahi, bill book, etc. Before the assessing authority applicant had furnished the list of purchases made from the farmers with reference to 6-R, date of purchases and also furnished the details of the ex-U.P. Principal with reference to 9-R giving the details of expenses, value of goods, truck number by which the goods were transported. On the examination of the books of account and necessary details, the assessing authorit...
Kshama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Through Its Secretary Amit JaIn Son o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC327
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 03.10.2005 (annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act). Primarily, as it would appear from the facts and discussions herein under, the petitioner has only attacked the notification issued under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act by which the provisions of Section 5A of the Act have been excluded and the petitioner's right to file objections against the proposed acquisition has been taken away.2. The petitioner is a cooperative housing Society duly registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner for the purposes of developing land and promoting residential colony had purchased the land in dispute in the city of Agra. The petitioner for developing the said land had submitted a lay out plan to the Agra Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as A.D.A.) for approval and whe...
Ran Vijay Singh S/O Late Sri Thakur Prasad Singh and Smt. Kamla Singh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR458]
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, framed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Bank.2. By this writ petition the petitioner have prayed for quashing the orders dated 15.9.2003 and 16.10.2003 Annexures V and VI to the writ petition communicating the petitioner No. 2 that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been accepted and the Bank has decided to give a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,09,000/- in lieu thereof. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment in the light of earlier scheme regarding compassionate appointment.3. The facts of the case for deciding this writ petition briefly stated are:The father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 late Sri Thakur Prasad Singh was serving as Arm guard in Union Bank of India, Branch Ahiraula district Azamgarh. The said Shri Singh an ex-army man, was...
Nand Kishore Awasthi Vs. A.D.J., Court No. 16 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC173
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The short point that has been advanced by Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority as well as the prescribed authority while dealing with the application filed by the contesting respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has not considered as to whether release of the part of the accommodation will suffice the requirement of tenant as well as landlord.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that this plea which has not been raised either before the prescribed authority or appellate authority, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. Ilnd Additional District Judge and Ors. 1980 ARC 311, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:1. We have heard counsel for the parties. On going th...
Smt. Binda Bau and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All10; 2007(1)AWC816
ORDERAshok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri B.N. Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Misra and Sri D.N. Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 24.8.1984 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 18(z) of 1976-77 and the order dated 29.7.1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 4.3.1976 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. A mandamus has also been sought directing the Board of Revenue to hear the appeal after giving opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are:A suit under Section 220-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the respondent No. 6-Deep Chandra praying for declaration with regard to Plot No. 304 area 4.60 acres on basis of adverse possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 4.3.1976. A first appeal was filed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »