Allahabad Court November 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.
Kamal Oil Mill Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST906(All)
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Shri Alok Kumar, and learned Counsel for the State.2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against an order of the Tribunal dated January 22, 2004 passed under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority dated August 1, 2000 and has maintained the imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 38,250 under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the transaction of assessment year 1998-99.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the assessee at length as well as learned Counsel for the department and I have also perused the orders of the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority.4. The assessee, Kamal Oil Mills contends that they purchased soya refined oil from Neel Kamal Trading Company on February 20, 1999 by giving an advance. The other facts are that soya bean oil was imported from Indore and was going towards destin...
Dr. Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Vijay Pal Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1350
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The Writ Petition No. 68271 of 2005 and connected writ petitions involve same question of facts between the same parties. The Writ Petition No. 30714 of 2003, has been filed by the landlord after Mahesh Kumar Agarwal challenging the order dated 22.5.2003, by which the Additional District Judge, (Court No. 1), Muzaffarnagar has passed an order of status quo against the eviction of the respondents-tenant, in which the petitioner landlord has challenged the proceedings of Rent Control Revision No. 2 of 2003, praying for quashing of the same.3. The Writ Petition No. 54055 of 2002, has been filed by the tenant Vijai Pal Goel inter alia that he is tenant of shop in dispute No. 32/3, Dak-shini, Civil Lines, Arya Samaj Road, Muzaffarnagar since 12.6.1991 on the basis of written agreement between him and the landlord. It is being prayed in this petition for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the or...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Emami Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST433(All)
Bharati Sapru, J. 1. Heard learned standing counsel Sri B.K. Pandey for the revisionist State and Sri S.K. Bagaria, Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal for the assessee.2. This revision has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of the tribunal dated 21.10.1999 under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The tribunal has by the impugned order held that two products namely Himani Naturally Faircream and Himani Naturally Fair Lotion are to be classified as medicines and therefore be chargeable to tax as 'Ayurvedic' medicines and has held that the same are not cosmetics.3. The State is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the tribunal holding the above two products to be medicines.4. The facts of the case are as such that the assessee dealer is a limited company having its registered office and manufacturing unit at Kolkatta West Bengal and its sale depot at Kanpur U.P. is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.5. For the assessment year 1996-97, ...
Rajendra Baboo Vs. Additional District Judge - Iii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC413
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is landlord's writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. Respondents No. 3 and 4 Sri Niwas Gupta and Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Sri Niwas Gupta are tenants of the shop in dispute since 1985. Shop in dispute was let out through registered lease deed dated 20.3.1985 for five years at the rent of Rs. 500 per month. The lease deed was registered on 16.5.1985.3. Landlord petitioner instituted a suit for eviction against the tenants respondents by filing plaint on 17.12.1990, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 58 of 1990 before J.S.C.C., Bareilly. The suit was transferred for disposal before Additional J.S.C.C, Bareilly. In the written agreement, it was mentioned that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year, 1980.4. The main dispute was/is regarding date of construction of the shop in dispute. According to the landlord, the shop in dispute was assessed for the purposes of house tax for the first time In the Year 1987-...
Punit Kohli Vs. Vinod Kumar JaIn (D) by L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC416
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 18 of 1992 on the file of prescribed authority, Bijnore. Property in dispute is a shop dimensions of which are 19 feet xl9 feet and the rent is Rs. 500 per month. (An amount of Rs. 50 per month is also paid by the tenant as water tax). It was stated in the release application that landlord had failed in B.A. final examination in the year 1991 and he intended to establish the business of selling spare parts of machinery from the shop in dispute. Prescribed authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Bijnore allowed the release application through order dated 22.5.1995. Landlord was directed to pay Rs. 7,500 (15 months rent) as compensation to the tenant. Against the said judgment and order ten...
Shahjade S/O Abdul Khaliq Vs. Industrial Tribunal (i) and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR505]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Siddharth counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Mukherjee and standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as Labourer on 25.6.1982 in the respondent M/s Jeep Industrial Ltd. Allahabad. The petitioner workman claimed that his services had wrongly been terminated vide order dated 21.10.1997 w.e.f. 23.10.1997. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter regarding validity and justification of termination of the workman was referred to Industrial Tribunal (I), UP. at Allahabad, where it was registered as adjudication case No. 24 of 1999. The order of reference is as under:Kya sewayojakon dwara apne sambandhit shramik Sri Shahjade, putra Sri Abdul Khalik ki sewain dinank 23.10.97 ke samapt kiya jana ucit tatha/athwa vadhainik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hai, evam anya kis vivran sahit?3. On receipt of summons, the workman filed ...
State of U.P. Through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Vs. Pres ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2133; [2007(112)FLR1044]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard.Case has been taken up in the revised list.2. Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the State Government which has filed the writ petition. Counsel for the workman respondent No. 2 is not present.3. This writ petition is directed against an Award passed by Labour Court, Rampur dated 23.4.1999 in Adjudication Case No. 127 of 1991. The aforesaid award has been enforced by publication on the notice board on 26.7.1999. It appears from the records that respondent workman was a daily wage employee in Irrigation Division, Moradabad. He was initially engaged on 1.1.1988 and worked intermittently from time to time upto 31.8.1989. He was not engaged thereafter.4. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that his services has been illegally terminated w.e.f. 1.9.89 without compliance of Section 6-N of the U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as UPID Act. A reference under Section 4-K of the UPID Act was sent by the State Government o ...
Harish Chandra Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC538; [2008(116)FLR221]
ORDERAnjani Kumar and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant is working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of State of U.P. He has been transferred by the impugned order of transfer dated 30th July, 2007. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid transfer order which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge has specifically observed that the petitioner has already filed a representation against the transfer order dated 30th July, 2007. Therefore, the same be decided by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. This judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge by means of this appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been transferred on the recommendation made by M.L.A. in his letter, therefore, according to the decision of t...
Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/O Sri Babu Ram Sharma Vs. District Judge and R ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR520]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, an employee of the District Judgeship. Farrukhabad, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 05.09.2007 passed by: the District Judge, Farrukhabad conducting regular inquiry against the petitioner and appointing inquiry officer for the said purpose and against the order dated 15.10.2007 which is a consequential order since earlier inquiry officer was posted as A.D.J. Ill and now he is A.D.J. II.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has requested District Judge to change the inquiry officer and since no action has been taken thereon, therefore, he is not able to participate in the inquiry.Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner relates to an incident which is about 12 years old and, therefore, no inquiry now can be held after such a long time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement in Sta...
Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC550
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, an employee of the District Judgship, Farrukhabad, has filled this petition challenging the order dated 5.9.2007, passed by the District Judge, Farrukhabad conducting regular inquiry against the petitioner and appointing inquiry officer for the said purpose and against the order dated 15.10.2007 which is a consequential order since earlier inquiry officer was posted as A.D.J. III and now he is A.D.J. II.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has requested the District Judge to change the inquiry officer and since no action has been taken thereon, therefore, he is not able to participate in the inquiry.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner relates to an incident which is about 12 years old and, therefore, no inquiry now can be held after such a long time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Apex Court's judgment in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »