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.
Cantonment Board Vs. Smt. Sudarshan Mala JaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC4098
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri Isa Khan for the applicant and Sri P.N. Saxena, senior advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena, learned Counsel for the opposite party.2. This contempt petition has been filed by a Statutory Authority, i.e. Cantonment Board, Meerut through its Executive Officer. It is alleged that in spite of the injunction order dated 27.1.2005 as extended from time to time passed in Writ Petition No. 3526 of 2005, the opposite parties have raised constructions and in fact had constructed a huge building in the nature of a shopping Mall over the disputed land.3. Bungalow No. 176 and 176 A-C admeasuring to about 0.436 acres is situated at Chappel Street in the Meerut Cantonment and is maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and thereafter under 1937 Rules. The said bungalow is reflected in the general land register as survey No. 357/1749 and is classified as B-3 and it stands in the name of Smt. Berma Devi wife ...
Buddhu and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Mohammad Anis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC800
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayub Khan Advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 218 consisting of plot Nos. 31, 36, 237, 407 and 436 of village Ikbara, Pargana Hastinapur, District Meerut. According to the facts disclosed in the writ petition, in the basic year Khatauni, the name of contesting respondent No. 2 was recorded in column No. 8 and the name of Chhatra, father of the petitioner was found to be in possession over the said plot. During the consolidation operation, the petitioners filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that they were in possession since last more than 18 years. Counter objection was filed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioners. The contesting respondents claimed that Chhatra, father of the petitioners was their servant and therefore, he can not claim any right on the basis of his possession. He used to plough fields on...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Shyamo Devi Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2008)17VST404(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a common order dated December 23, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 458 of 1991 (1985-86) and Second Appeal No. 629 of 1991 (1985-86) and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the revisionist and Sri M. Manglik for the respondent.2. Proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Brief facts of the aforesaid case are:Assessment order of the respondent-assessee was passed on December 10, 1989 in which no tax was imposed. An information was received from the Trade Tax Officer that the assessee has sold 342 kg. mentha oil to a firm M/s. Ajmani Chemicals, Rampur, which sale being not verifiable from the account books and documents submitted by the assessee at the time of original assessment. A belief was formed that the turnover has escaped the assessment to tax and therefore not...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Agrawal Mandi Janta Ent Nirmata Associatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2008)16VST527(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present 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 April 7, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') claimed to be an association of the brick kiln owners and was engaged in the business of buying and selling of coal. It was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts. The coal was imported against the declaration form XXXI as contemplated under Section 28A of the Act from outside the State of U.P. Forms C were also issued relating to such purchases. Coal was imported through railway. Such coal was sold to the brick kiln owners for which bills were raised and tax was charged. Tax was also admitted and deposited. During the course of the assessment proceeding, dealer claimed that freight was directly paid by the brick kiln owners to the railway and, ther...
Jagdish Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1638
Pradeep Kant and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra for the petitioner. Sri A.K. Verma, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Uttam Kumar Pathak for the respondent No. 4.2. This writ petition by a person who is engaged in mining activities and is aspiring for the mining lease of the area in question, has been filed questioning the jurisdiction of the State Government to renew the lease of the respondent No. 4. Chahat Ram, who was granted lease in terms of the Government order dated 25.5.1995 under para 5 (3) of the said order for a period of five years with effect from 14.6.2001 and had applied for renewal under the provisions of Rule 6A of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1963).3. The petitioner had moved a representation/objection against the application for renewal of the lease by the petitioner before the State Government but since he was not being heard, therefore, he filed the present petition for a d...
Indian Institute of Technology Through Its Director Vs. State of Uttar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR920]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. This writ petition has been filed the petitioner Institute against an award of the Labour Court IV, Kanpur dated 27.7.1999 published on 6.9.1999 in adjudication case No. 78 of 1998. The said award of the Labour Court has reinstated the respondent No. 2 in the services of the petitioner and has also awarded to him wages for the period 10.9.1998 onwards. The order of reference reads here in below:KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA SHRAMIK SRI ANIL KUMAR PANDKY PUTRA SRI VIJAY SHANKER PANDEY (PROJECT MECHANIC) KO OINAK 17.2.91 SE KARYA SE PRATHAK/VANCIHT KIYA ,JANA UCHIT EVAM VAIDHANIK IIAl YADI HAI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA HITLAB/KSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI? KIS TITHI EVAM ANYA KIS VIVRAN KE SATH.2. The facts of the case are that the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') is a body corporate which is established under the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961. The petitioner is thus constituted as a 'statutory body und...
Gandhian Institute of Studies, a Society Registered Under the Societie ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC409
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Gandhian Institute of Studies, Varanasi (herein after referred to as GIS), is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society was founded in the year 1960 by Jai Prakash Narain and other like minded people, and the same was got registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1962. The aims and objects of the said society were to disseminate Gandhian thoughts and philosophy and engage in many fold academic activities including research, seminar, science on issues ranging from technology and the use of Gandhian thoughts in the modern world to study of weaker Sections and women etc. In the year 1977 Indian Council of Social Sciences and Research (ICSSR), a nodal body of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MOHRD), Government of India started giving financial aid for the activities of Gandhian Institute of Studies (GIS). Large scale complaints were made and during the period starting with effect from 1994-97 Spec...
Bansh Narain, Son of Ram Khelawan Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolida ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC394
S.U. Khan, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and involves question of title. 2. Agricultural land in dispute is comprised in Plot No. 672 /5 area 4 bigha. In the basic year, petitioner was recorded Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and original contesting respondent No. 4 Ram Charitra as occupant (At least until 1370 fasli (1962-63 A.D) name of Ram Charitra was recorded as occupant in the revenue records). Objections were filed before C.O. I, Gyanpur by the petitioner. C.O through order dated 23.9.1968, decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 4 and directed that the name of petitioner shall be deleted from the revenue records and name of respondent No. 4 shall be entered as Sirdar. The objections had been registered as Case No. 7356 (by the same objections matter pertaining to plot No. 767/2 was also decided however in this writ petition the said plot is not involved as matter in respect thereof was decided in favour of the petitioner). Against the ...
Vinai Krishna Gaur S/o Shri Kailash Nath Gaur Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Ju ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3825
Amitava Lala and V.C. Misra, JJ.1. Pursuant to the earlier direction the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended before this Court that the affidavit has already been filed in the department. He tendered apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court. In effect, the Registrar General and the Registrar (Establishment) are the responsible persons in the Registry, who were personally present yesterday i.e. on 23rd August, 2006 and are also present today to accommodate the Court. We accept the submissions as made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Registry and personal presence of the respondents i.e. Registrar General and Sri Diwakar Mishra, Registrar (Establishment) of this High Court is dispensed with. In pursuance of the earlier direction the presence of the respondents before this Court is no more required, as it is being rightly meant for presence of the persons and whose presence is dispensed with today. Subsequent order in respect of personal prese...
Pateshwari Electrical and Associated Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR165(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the bank interest on fixed deposits representing the particular amount received against the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee from the U. P. State Electricity Board was taxable for the assessment years 1983-84, and 1984-85 and 1985-86 and specially in view of the circumstances of this particular case ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from Nainital property and from furniture and fixtures therein as leased out to the State Bank of India for use of the training centre was income from house property and not income from business or income from other sources, as alleged by the assessee ?2. The reference relates to the assessment year...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »