Allahabad Court December 2007 Judgments
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1887
Janardan Sahai, J.1. It appears that certain disputes regarding the payment for work done by the respondent No. 2 in the Khumbh Mela of 1998 at Hardwar arose between the petitioner State of U.P. and the 2nd respondent. There was an arbitration Clause No. 29 in the contract and in pursuance of the said arbitration clause the dispute was referred to arbitration of the named arbitrator, the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division. The Commissioner, Saharanpur partly allowed the claim of respondent No. 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 72,71,222.40 paisa. Learned standing counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent No. 2 are on common ground that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were applicable. The award was put into execution by the respondent No. 2 at Allahabad where the office of the petitioner No. 3, the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad who was opposite party in the execution case is situate. Objections under Section 47 of the C.P.C. were filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Antahpuri Vidyalaya Shiksha Samity and anr. V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC695
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have claimed the following reliefs:(A) Issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 3.8.2007 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 ;(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioner's committee in the pursuance of the orders dated 3.8.2007 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 ;(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the some other suitable Administrative authority to enquire the renewal of the society of the respondent No. 3 regarding the papers filed by the respondent No. 3 after 26 y...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)17VST329(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. These two trade tax revisions have been filed by the dealer under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short, referred to as, 'the Act') against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-II, Kanpur passed in Second Appeal No. 490 of 1986 and 491 of 1986 relating to assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. They arise out of the proceedings for penalty under Section 4B(5) of the Act.2. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for the department.3. According to the dealer it is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of road equipments. It applied for grant of recognition certificate under Section 4B of the Act. Recognition certificate was granted on July 4, 1979 for a period of two years, i.e., 1979-80 and 1980-81. Subsequently it was renewed for a further period of three years. The dealer continued to make purchases of various raw materials which admitted...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST789(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. Both these revisions arise out of the proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01.2. Revision No. 2557 of 2005 relates to the assessment proceedings under Section 7(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') whereas Revision No. 2558 of 2005 relates to penalty proceedings under Section 15A(1)(o) of the Act.3. The mobile squad of the Trade Tax Department intercepted the truck carrying certain goods on April 30, 2000. The truck was stationed at the police station and the goods were given to the custody of the station house officer on May 31, 2000. Notice under Section 13A of the Act for seizure of the goods demanding explanation from the dealer was issued by the Trade Tax Department on June 1, 2000. Statement of the driver was also recorded. It is not disputed that the driver deposed that he was carrying the goods from Orai to Kanpur; he further deposed that he did not have complete papers and lastly that the relevant papers were with the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji and Vs. Kanpur Sugar Works Limited, a Limited Company Through Sr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2083
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of respondent hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants were heard.2. This is defendants' second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 1203 of 1967 instituted by plaintiff-respondent against Vindhyachal who died during pendency of suit before the trial-court and was substituted by his two sons who were original appellants in this appeal (They have also died and have been substituted by legal representatives). The suit was for possession and demolition and was decreed on 24.8.1974 by 1st Additional Munsif, Deoria. Against the said judgment and decree original appellants filed civil appeal No. 135 of 1974 which was dismissed by Civil Judge, Deoria through judgment and decree dated 14.4.1976 hence this second appeal.3. Plaintiffs case was that plot No. 2729 was the property of Jagdish Sugar Mills; that the entire assets of Jagdish Sugar Mills were purchased by the plaintiff including plot No. 2729; that father ...
Tag this Judgment!Kripa Shankar Tiwari S/O Late Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Tiwari Vs. Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR431]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Suresh Singh, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.It is pleaded that the father of the petitioner Late Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad was working as a Headmaster in Junior High School, Dev Goan in district Fatehpur when he died in harness on 4.6.1989 and thereafter petitioner was granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 3.10.1997. However, without any notice or opportunity, the said order was cancelled vide order dated 8.10.1997 which is impugned in the connected petition No. 36028 of 2000. In pursuance of an order dated 18.8.2000 passed in the aforesaid connected petition, the respondents have passed a fresh order dated 28.8.2001 rejecting his representation and affirming the order dated 8.10.1997 which is challenged in the present petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the order dated 8.10.1997 was passed without notice or opportunity and as such ought to be quashed.It is ap...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Industries Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST465(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. The dealer has filed this revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh dated June 28, 2006 whereby the second appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. has been partly allowed and tax liability of Rs. 3,23,397 has been imposed on the dealer.2. Although the dealer has framed four questions of law in the memorandum of the revision but all the said questions are interrelated. The only question of law which arises for consideration by this Court is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case manipulated enhanced figure of sale and purchase and stock furnished by the dealer to the bank for the purposes of obtaining loan would amount to relevant material for the purposes of reassessment under Section 21 of the Act and based on these projected figures, reassessment and determination of turnover and tax liability would be justified?3. The dea...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra S/o Late Sri Ram Dayal Vs. the Central Administrative Tribuna ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC1027; [2008(117)FLR34]
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 464 of 200.5, has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.3.1999 and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim regarding compassionate appointment.2. Heard Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the record.3. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Late Ram Dayal, who died in harness on 19.5.1996 while working as Civil Mazdoor under the Commanding Officer, 264 Company, A.S.C. Supply Depot, Allahabad. However, he made representation on 19.9.1996 to the Quarter Master General's Branch, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi for c...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR804]
Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. Heard Sri Neeraj Chitravansi for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Chandra Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Shreesh Kumar and Sanjai Kumar.2. The petitioner Dr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, while working as Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine, U.P., was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of several serious charges. A charge-sheet dated 20th June, 1998 was issued to him which was replied by him on 29th August, 1998. In all there were seven charges levelled against him with respect to alleged misconduct and irregularities committed by him in his tenure as Registrar. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 10.12.1998. Thereafter, the order of punishment, namely, dismissal from service was passed on 11.11.1999 by the Director Ayurved/Controller, Board of Indian Medicine, U.P. Lucknow.The Enquiry Officer has found all the charges proved and the Director while passing the order of dismissal from service has taken into consideration the Enquiry...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shanker Lal S/O Late Babu Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Secre ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR106]
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Since the respondents have already filed counter affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and on the basis of the pleadings available on record the writ petition may be heard and decided. Learned Standing Counsel did not object to the said request and, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court at the admission stage (sic).2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the State Government has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 6955/- upon the petitioner, besides censure entry, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same.3. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 28.08.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) containing two charges. The petitioner submitted his repl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »