Allahabad Court October 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.
Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Ashoka Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST332(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present six revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. 1 Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 9, 2004 relating to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95fand 1995-96 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 8D(6) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revisions are that the 2 dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') was engaged in the business of purchases and sales of truck chassis. During the years under consideration, the dealer had purchased body from various persons and got it mounted over the chassis. The assessing authority levied the penalty under Section 8D(6) of the Act on the ground that the dealer had got the body constructed over the chassis from the contractor under the works contract and, therefore, while making the payment to the contractor should have deducted four per cent an...
Waqf Allah Tala Malik Alal Aulad Vs. Krishna Autar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC309
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, who has appeared through caveat in both the writ petitions.2. On 1.3.1935, lease-deed of a big piece of land was executed by Karim Bux, Abdulla and Smt. Muneerunnisa in favour of Bulbul Prasad with permission to make constructions in the form of factory shops, houses, go-downs etc. The lease was granted for 89 years. Under Clause 2 of the lease-deed, it was provided that for 89 years, the lessors or their descendants would not have any right to get vacated leased land from the lessee or their descendants on any ground. Rent amount was fixed at Rs. 75 per month. Thereafter, on 18.8.1936, the lessors executed a waqf-deed in which the leased property was also included.3. In pursuance of the lease deed, the lessee got constructed several buildings and one building in the form of a hotel consisting about 17 rooms was let out to Sri Shitla Prasad Jain, fathe...
Dwijendra Nath Roy Son of Late P.N. Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC1046
1. Since, in both the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of fact and law are involved and both have been heard analogously, they are being decided by this common judgment, having binding effect upon both of them. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23125 of 2004, which has been dealt with herein will be considered as leading case.2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to get an appropriate order passed, setting aside the office order dated 14th October, 2003 & the order of rejection of appeal, dated 6/10 February, 2004 and consequential orders in connection therewith. The writ petition was filed on 19th June, 2004 and the parties have exchanged the affidavits.3. At the time of hearing of the writ petitions, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, raised an objection about the maintainability of such writ petitions directly before the writ Court.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in objection thereto /contended that it is no...
Sri Chandra Pal Singh Son of Sri Ram Bharose Singh Vs. Zonal General M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR512]
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.12.1991 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 2.6.1992 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 so far as it relates to the petitioner being appointed as a fresh denying him continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits thereof. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with continuity of service and treat the petitioner in continuous service and to pay all arrears of salary with effect from 31.12.1991.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad Region, Allahabad was appointed in the year 1975 and subsequently, he was confirmed. On 29.12.1988, when the petitioner was on duty as conductor and was going in...
Rewant Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ659
ORDERVinod Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.The applicants are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Three contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants for the prayer that the aforesaid prosecution of the applicant be quashed.2. Firstly, he contended that the applicant are running a restaurant business and therefore, there is no sale of the Basan in question which was kept for preparation of eatable in the restaurants. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is bereft of any sound reasoning because Food Inspector after preparation of Form-6 paid the sale price of Rs. 21/-. The said sale to the Food Inspector by itself constitute sale within the meaning of the sale under the PFA Act and is indicative of the fact that Basan was meant; for sale. There is no requirement of the law that the sale to the Food Inspector is not covered within the de...
Mohd. Rafeeq Vs. Shanti Swaroop Suri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC561
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff Shanti Swarup Suri purchased a property No. G-1 situate at Tauria Jeewan Shah, Fort Zone, Cantonment, Civil Lines, Jhansi from one Abdul Rashid vide a registered sale deed dated 25.1.1972 and since then, is in possession through its tenants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. 2, Noor Mohammad Shah had no right, title or interest in the property in question and illegally executed a sale deed dated 9.1.1985 in favour of defendant No. 1, Mohd. Rafeeq. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale deed so executed by the defendant No. 2, in favour of defendant No. 1, was wholly illegal and was also made without any consideration and was therefore null and void. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit praying for a declaration that he should be declared the owner of the property in question and in possession through its tenants and that the sale deed dated 9.1.1985 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared null and void....
imran Masood Son of Rashid Masood Vs. State of U.P. Through the Princi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC271
1. The Court: This Writ Petition has been made for quashing the show cause notice dated 13.9.2007 and the consequential order dated 15.9.2007. Therefore, prima-facie, we are of the view that the writ petition has been made challenging the snow cause notice which has been issued by the state authorities in accordance with the appropriate law. It is well settled by now that in case only issuance of now cause notice is challenged, Court should not interfere generally because the petitioner has an ample opportunity to file his reply and explain his case before the state authority by whom the show cause notice has been issued.2. In the instant case, Sri Ravi Kant and Sri S.M.A Qazmi learned senior counsels duly assisted by Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Counsel appeared in support of the Writ Petition and contended before the Court that the (sic) cause notice is malafide in nature and without jurisdiction, therefore, show cause notice can be challenged. The action on the part of the authority is...
Committee of Management of Smt. Sughra Begum Girls Inter College Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC152
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Committee of Management Smt. Sughra Begum Girls Inter College Firozabad has filed present writ petition questioning the (validity of the decision taken on 17.12.2005 passed by Regional Joint Director of Education holding therein that claim set up by Smt. Sheelmani Sharma, respondent No. 4 is liable to be accepted and for lapse of the Committee of Management action be taken under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 against the Committee of Management.2. In the district of Firozabad there is recognized institution known as Smt. Sughra Begum Girls Inter College Firozabad. Said institution is minority institution and the affairs of the said Institution is to be run and managed strictly as per the provision as contained under U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and regulation framed thereunder. Said institution is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution, On 31.06.1995 Smt. Krishna Agrawal, Principal of the...
Devaki Nandan S/O Ganeshi Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, For ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC24
Shiv Shanker, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 6.7.07 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2 Etawah.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the whole record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is owner of truck no. RJ 05/G-3764 in question and it was not involved in any criminal case. He has no knowledge regarding involvement of any criminal case but his truck has been falsely implicated in this case, for which the F.I.R. was lodged on 8.3.05 against the alleged Truck driver Mahesh Chandra and other persons under Sections 52(a) and 26 of Indian Forest Act(U.P. Amendment Act) and under Section 21, 22, 37 of Restraint of Air Polution and Environmental Act and under Rule 3/28 of U.P. Avivahan Niyamavali 1973 and Section 41/42 of Indian Forest Act. It is further contended that he got information on 8.3.05 that his truck has been retained due to loading of fores...
U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner, Trade ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST324(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated May 23, 2007 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. The applicant claimed to be a corporation of the State Government and is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). Admittedly, the applicant was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal in the years under consideration. In the year under consideration the applicant purchased coal from outside the State of U.P. and issued form C in respect thereof. The assessing authority initiated the penalty under Section 10A of the Act for the violation of clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act and after hearing the applicant levied the penalty under Section 10A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the orders under Section 10(b) of the Act, the applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »