Allahabad Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paramount Trading Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR21(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the unpaid liability towards payment to employees' provident fund, family pension, employees' State insurance and employees deposit linked insurance was not covered by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s finding that the proviso to Section 187(2) of the Act was applicable and there was a dissolution of the firm on the death of one of its partners on June 23, 1985, in spite of the fact that clause 10 of the partnership deed dated April 27, 1985, specifically provided that in the event of the death of any partner the firm w...
Umesh Kumar Misra Son of Sri Ram Raj Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR10]
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The petitioner qualified competitive test for selection as a constable in C.R.P.F. and was sent for training. After completion of training he was posted in Assam. However, before his services could be confirmed a departmental inquiry was instituted against him vide office order dated 22.10.1997 on the ground that while filling up his application form for service he has deliberately suppressed information about his involvement in a criminal case and as such has committed an act of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer after completing the inquiry submitted his report on 12.12.19967 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct. Accordingly, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, an order of dismissal from service was passed by the commandant 82 Bn. C.R.P.F. on 10.2.1998. The said order of dismissal from service has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.2. Heard Sri Shashikant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and ...
Mahavir Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. through It's Secretary, Sunil Khatri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1162
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This petition and all the other petitions referred to in the Schedule appended to this judgment, question the validity of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), in respect of the area notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the aforesaid Act spread over seven revenue villages of district Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. All these cases raise common questions of law and fact, and therefore they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment, which shall govern them.2. The facts are not in dispute. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for planned development of New Kanpur City in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9th August, 1996 in respect of a huge area of land of seven Revenue Estates. Substance of the said notification was published in different newspapers. The last such publication was made on 20.12.1996. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.1...
Gaon Sabha Through Its Pradhan, Sri Rajendra Singh Son of Mauzi Lal Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC63
S.U. Khan, J.1. In this writ petition Hon'ble R.B. Misra J. passed several orders (on the order sheet) from 10.8.2001 till 23.11.2004 in respect of service upon respondents. District Magistrate and other officials were also directed to effect service and file affidavit of compliance, which was accordingly done. District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate were also directed to be made parties in the writ petition. However at the time of arguments on 2.8.2006 no one appeared on behalf of the respondents except respondent No. 14 Ram Swaroop one of the auction purchasers on whose behalf Sri A.K. Sharma learned Counsel has argued the case. Sri M.M.D. Agarwal learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel represented the State authorities. On 2.8.2006 all the substitution applications were allowed after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and judgment was reserved (order on the order sheet).2. This writ petition discloses a shocking state of affai...
Satish Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1366
O.P. Srivastava, J.1. Since the above writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and common arguments have also been advanced, they are being taken together for disposal by this common judgment.2. Through the above writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Satish, Ram Chandra. Yadav and Om Prakash have prayed that detention order dated 24-11-2005 slapped against them by District Magistrate, Lakhimpur-opposite party No. 3 under Section 3(3) of National Security Act (hereafter referred to as 'Act'), be quashed.3. Factual matrix impelling opposite party No. 3 to take action under the Act, in brief, is as follows:On 3-9-2005 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioners duly armed with Banka and pistol caught hold of deceased Neki at Mohanpurwa Tiraha when he along with his sister Gudiya and brother-in-law Ram Naresh were going on cycles. With an intention to kill Neki, he was attacked by means of Banka. Neki even after sustaining injuries managed to run away from ...
Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR182(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 the opinion of this Court :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction for liability for market fee on the sale of sugar and molasses ?2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows :4. During the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee had claimed deduction for Rs. 6,72,294 being the liability for payment of market fee.5. According to the assessee, market fee is payable to the Government of Bihar on purchase of sugarcane and sale of sugar and molasses under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. The assessing officer had observed that the assessee has not proved its claim. He ...
Chandra Shekhar Azad Junior High School and anr. Vs. Satya Pal Juneja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1522
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, this petition takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2004 appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2003 Satya Pal Juneja v. Chandra Shekhar Azad Junior High School passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground that he alongwith his family members were residing at Sambhalpur, Orissa and he intends to shift at Kanpur.3. The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner by filing written statement, inter alia, that landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possession; he has concealed the accommodation in his possession; his two tenants-Sri Hemraj ...
Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1789
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dipak Seth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition may be treated as public interest litigation petition as he has raised several legal and constitutional issues like judicial accountability and freedom of individual etc. in this case.3. Sri Dipak Seth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents has strongly resisted the writ petition. At the outset, Sri Dipak Seth, has raised preliminary objection that the controversy raised in this writ petition has already been concluded by this Court in W.P. No. 6200 (S/S) of 2002 vide judgment and order passed on 14.5.2004. A special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rules 5, 9 and 10 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, against the said judgment and order dated 14.5.2004, had been di...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Regional Manager, Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC609
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed against the same order of the Labour Court dated 31st August, 1993 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The first writ petition has been filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) challenging the order dated 31st august, 1993 passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allowing the application filed by the workman, Swami Nath.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding both the writ petitions are; Swami Nath, petitioner in the second writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was working as Conductor in the Corporation. He was engaged in 1956 and was working as Conductor on 1st July, 1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 185-265. With effect from 1st July, 1979 the pay scale was revised on Rs. 335- 495. After completion of 10 years service the Conductors were entitled for the higher pay scale of Rs. 425-545 and again after further completion o...
Narendra Prasad Rai Son of Hari Har Rai Vs. State of U.P. Through the ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1265; [2006(111)FLR800]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has made a prayer seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 19.6.1993 and 2.3.1992 passed by the respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition). The first the order of removal was passed by the Superintendent of Police and the second is the order passed in appeal by the D.I.G. (Police).3. The contention of the petitioner is that both the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal because the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end without giving to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the provisions of Section 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The contention of the petitioner also is that the provisions of Section 8 (2)(b) of the Rules aforesaid can only be dispensed with certain circumstances and although...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »