Allahabad Court January 2007 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.
Suraj Pal son of Late Gaya Prasad and Smt. Ketki wife of Sri Suraj Pal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1739; 2007(2)AWC1745; [2007(112)FLR1002]
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of order-dated 10.3.2003 passed by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner Fatehpur whereby the application of the petitioner made for payment under the Workmen Compensation Act,1923 was rejected on the ground that cause of action arose after 19.3.1991 while the application was filed on 27.4.1998 i.e. after a lapse of seven years that too without any accompanying application for condonation of delay. In the ultimate analysis, it would appear, the objection of the Opp. Party was nodded in acceptance holding that the application was barred by time.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that from the materials on record, it brooks no dispute that Dhruv Narain alias Raju was last seen on 9.3.1991 and eversince then his whereabouts were not known and in consequence his civil death could be presumed after elapse of seven years and further that after elapse of seven years, the application was duly ...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. S/S Ravel Baton Store
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST52(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as'Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 06.04.2004 relating to the assessment year 1990-91 under Central Sales Tax Act.2. The short question involved in the present revision relates to the taxability of artificial silk yarn. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as'Dealer') clamed that the artificial silk yarn is silk yarn and, therefore, exempted from tax under notification No. ST-671-11-9(231)/94-U.P. Act No. 15-40-Order-2000, dated 26.02.2000. The claim of the revenue is that it is not silk yarn and liable to tax as an unclassified item. Tribunal held that artificial silk yarn is silk yarn and, therefore, exempted from tax.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that artificial silk yarn and silk yam are two different commodities. According to him only pure silk yarn is covered under silk yarn and not artificial silk yarn...
Naveen Textile Agencies Through Sri Naveen Malhotra, Proprietor Vs. Cu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(230)ELT235(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following relief.(i) a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.11.2000 issued on 13.12.2000 and served on 29.12.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi read with order dated 4.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad.(ii) a writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner to adjudicate the case afresh correctly computing the duty liability or to direct the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh considering all the contentions taken in the memo of appeal and urged during the course of hearing.(iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.(iv) and to award the cost of the Writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case-giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in...
Shyam Praksh Agarwal and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All107
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. These two connected appeals have been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 22-5-2000 and 2-6-2000 respectively passed by Presiding Officer U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parished Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 66 of 1999, Smt. Madhuri Sharan represented by Legal Representatives v. State of U.P. and Ors. in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act.2. It appears that the State of U.P. has acquired certain land for Tal Katora street Scheme for housing development through Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and for that purpose notifications under Sections 357 and 363 of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 were made on 20-10-1962 and 20-2-67 respectively. The possession over the land was taken on 13-12-1977 and Special Land Acquisition Officer has made award for the compensation to the land owners on 31-3-1986 wherein the market value of land was determined @ .50 paise per square feet. In ...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Kayson Metallic Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)14VST139(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These five revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as'Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 11.02.1998 relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 74-75 and 75-76.2. Dealers/opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as 'Dealers') were engaged in the business of brass taps and their fittings. Dealers vide agreement dated 02.05.1973 appointed M/s Eastern Oceanic, 310, Thakurdwar, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as'Bombay Party') as export agent to procure the orders of export on behalf of the dealers. In pursuance thereof, Bombay Party obtained orders from the purchasers of outside the country and asked the dealers to dispatch the goods to Bombay for the export. Dealers in pursuance thereof, dispatched the goods to Bombay Party and, thereafter, Bombay Party exported the goods outside the country. During the course of assessment proceeding, dealers claimed that the dispatches of the goods to Bombay Party were in the course...
Justice Palok Basu, (Retd.) President, State Consumer Disputes Redress ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC781
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the orders dated 7.11.2005 and 8.12.2005 of the Hon'ble Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 3689 of 2003. The order dated 7.11.2005 commands the appellant to comply with the judgment dated 27.4.2004 in letter and spirit except for payment of interest before the next date and file an affidavit failing which the Court may be left with no other option but to frame charges for trial and order dated 8.12.2005 holding appellant prima facie guilty of willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 12.11.2003 and thereby frames charge as follows:You, Justice Palok Basu (Retired) President of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, show cause why you should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate defiance and willful disobedience of the interim ord...
Bhanu Pratap Pandey Son of DIn Bandhu Pandey and ors. Vs. District Mag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD249; 2007(1)AWC790
S.U. Khan, J.1. It appears that a large tract of land was acquired in Tehsil Mau District Banda including the land of the petitioners. In the award given under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, Special Land Acquisition Officer offered to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 472/- per bigha. Several persons whose land had been acquired including the petitioners filed applications for making reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as they were not satisfied with the market value determined and offered by Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the cases of the petitioners, references were made by the Collector to the District Judge through letter/order dated 12.8.1991. Thereafter District Magistrate, Banda wrote letters to the District Judge Banda on 13.7.1993, copy of one of such letter is annexure 9 to the writ petition. In the said letters, it was stated that 35 references were not actually sent by the office of the Collector as they were not...
Sheeshpal Singh Son of Ram Phal Singh Vs. the Addl. Commissioner (Fina ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1201
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Sidharth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned landing Counsel for the respondents. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard finally at admission stage and is being decided under the Rules of the Court.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.1998 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut the petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the same and further seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner treating him in continuous service from 21.9.1956 on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal.3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Consolidation Lekhpal on 21.9.1956 and he worked till 31.1.1964. Thereafter he was again employed on 4.2.1966 and worked till 4.6.1967. From 1.8.19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Comilla Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: [2007]289ITR310(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's-trusts were validly created trusts, when the sole beneficiaries of these trusts were neither in existence nor were identifiable at the time of creation of the trusts?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision holding that the dividend income arising out of 60,000 shares of Mohan Meakin Ltd. transferred by the assessee to two trusts could not be validly included in the hands of the assessee?2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as f...
VipIn Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)AWC1468
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri K. Shailendra for contesting respondent No. 1.2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras in P.A. Case No. I of 2002 Raj Kumar v. Vipin Kumar and Ors.3. By the aforesaid order the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras has rejected the application moved by the petitioner for amendment on the ground that it is only a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner to delay the decision of the matter.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) was filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority which was numbered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2002 Raj Kumar v. Vipin Kumar and Anr. The application was for eviction of the petitioner from the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »