Allahabad Court December 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.
Manoj Kumar Vs. Mohd. Saud and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC687
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. Under challenge is the judgment and order of the District Judge, dated 30.7.2007 passed in Election Petition No. 3/70 of 2006, Mohd. Saud v. Manoj Kumar and Anr. by which the election petition was allowed, the election of Manoj Kumar as Pramukh, Kshetriya Panchayat, Mooratganj, District Kaushambi was set aside and Mohd. Saud was declared elected in his place.2. The appellant Manoj Kumar and the respondent No. 1 Mohd. Saud both contested elections for the post of Pramukh, Kshetriya Panchayat, Mooratganj as Other Backward Class (hereinafter in short O.B.C.) candidates. The elections to the said post were held on 27.2.2007. All the 79 members of the Kshetriya Panchayat voted. Counting was done on the same evening. Three (3) ballot papers were rejected as invalid. Thus only 76 valid ballot papers remained for counting. On counting both the candidates secured 38 votes each and as such there was a tie. Accordingly, a lottery was drawn. On the basis of lottery respondent N...
Ajai Verma Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR30(All)
1. We have heard Sri S.K. Garg for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Upadhaya for the IT department. The petitioner was assessed by an assessment order dated 29-1-2004 (wrongly mentioned as 29-1-2003) by the respondent No. 2 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short), for the assessment year 2001-02. A copy of the assessment order has been enclosed as Annexure III to this writ petition.2. The petitioner is challenging a notice issued to him under Section 148 of the Act, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure VI to this writ petition.The main ground of challenge is that the notice under Section 148 dated 10-1-2007 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer. According to the petitioner, this notice has been issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, the said notice could not have been issued by the Income Tax Officer. It could have been issued by an assessing officer not below the ran...
Vishram Shukla Vs. Smt. Rajdei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC824
S.U. Khan, J.1. List revised. In spite of sufficient service as per office report dated 20.9.2007, no one has appeared on behalf of respondents. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 529 of 1988. The suit was filed for specific performance for agreement for sale and was decreed on 3.12.1991 by Civil Judge, Allahabad. Against the said judgment and decree, defendants-respondents filled Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1992, III A.D.J., Allahabad allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court through judgment and decree dated 17.11.1994 giving rise to the instant second appeal. At the bottom of the (sic) of second appeal, four substantial questions of law were stated by the appellant. This appeal was admitted on 3.10.2007 on substantial questions of law No. (i), (ii) and (iv), vhich are quoted below:(i) whether the lower appellate court acted illegally in reversing the finding recorded by the trial ...
Jagdish Glass Works Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST754(All)
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Krishna Agrawal and Sri Namai Das learned standing counsel for the State.2. The revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal dated June 4, 1999.3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has sustained the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 4B(5) of the Act, for having contravened the terms of the eligibility certificate on account of the fact that they sold soda ash in contravention of the terms of the recognition certificate.4. The questions of law referred are hereinbelow:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is legally correct and justified in confirming the penalty under Section 4B(5) on the facts and circumstances of the case?(ii) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in confirming the penalty at Rs. 67,608.36?(iii) Whether the levy of penalty at Rs. 67,608.36 is based on relevant cons...
ismail Khan (D.) by L.Rs. Vs. Saleem and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1342
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. A suit for injunction was filed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possessions of the plaintiff on the sehan as well as the passage in question. The plaintiff further prayed that the constructions raised by the defendants should also be removed. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the house and the sehan in question which he was using it for decades and that a dispute was raised earlier between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 in the year 1960, which culminated into a settlement in writing dated 20.4.1960, on the basis of which, the sehan was demarcated in two equal portions by fixing a stone in the middle of the sehan. The north side came into the share of the plaintiff and the south side came into the share of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further alleged that one door of the defendant No. 1, which opened into the sehan of the plaintiff was also closed down. The said settlement was duly implemented. The plaintiff alleged that now ...
Bal Krishna Verma Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1217
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Babu Lal (who died on 5.7.1984) filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against tenant Dharam Das in the form of O.S. No. 857 of 1966. The suit was decreed on 17.4.1969. Against the said judgment and decree, Dharam Das filed Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1969, which was allowed on 10.3.1971. Against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Babu Lal filed Second Appeal No. 2067 of 1971, which was allowed on 19.12.1978, judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court, was set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 17.4.1969 decreeing the suit of Babu Lal was restored.Property in dispute in a shop having an area of about 50 square yard. The rent is Rs. 5 per month.3 On 17.8.1984, Execution Case No. 11 of 1984 for execution of decree passed in second appeal was filed purporting to be on behalf of Babu Lal, who had, in fact, died on 5.7.1984. On the same day, i.e., 3.8.1984, an ame...
Anil Kumar Shukla S/O Late Shri Sukh Nandan Vs. State of U.P. and Saur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC352; 2008CriLJ2172
M.K. Mittal, J.1. Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1849 of 2004 Saurabh Srivastava v. Anil Kumar Shukla) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as an Act), P.S. Kotwali pending in the court of C.J.M., Hamirpur.2. I have heard Sri V.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Vasistha, learned Counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for state and have perused the material on record.Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.3. Brief facts are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of C.J.M. on 18.9.2004 alleging that the complainant was the owner of Truck No. UP 77 A 3932 along with his brother. This truck was sold to accused applicant for Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 75,000/- was paid in cash and four cheques were issued by the applicant accused. One cheque was for Rs. 1.50 lacs No. 272140 dated 10.6.2004 and three cheques wer...
Professor Sabhajit Mishra Son of Late Sri Mata Badal Mishra, Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1206
Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. The petitioners aggrieved by the Government Order dated 24.7.2001 providing for appointment of Head of Department in State Universities on rotation basis and for a fixed time, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid Government Order. They have also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents neither to give effect to the said Government Order nor to make amendment in the First Statute of the University in the light of the aforesaid Government Order and not to interfere with the function of the petitioners as Head of Department.2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are, that, all the petitioners are seniormost teachers/professors in various departments of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University) as detailed below:S.N Name Head of Department of1. Prof. Sabhajit Mishra Philosophy2. Prof. Rajendra Prasad Defence Studies3. Prof. Sm...
Yadvendra Singh Son of Shri Badal Singh, Vs. State of U.P. Through Pri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR842]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri D.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Lalitpur (respondent No. 4) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Forest Guard under 'U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001' (hereinafter referred to as 2001 Rules), the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. The claim of the petitioner for regularization under 2001 Rules has been rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy available on the date of commencement of the said Rules, i.e, 21.12.2001 whereagainst the petitioner could have been considered for regularization.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a number of vacancies fell subsequently were available and, therefore, the pet...
Janardan Yadav Son of Daya Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Through Secreta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1193; [2008(117)FLR28]
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Class-IV employee in Forest Department in July 1984 and has been continuing. On the promulgation of Rules, 'U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules. 2001' (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2001') his matter was considered for regularization by the competent authority but vide impugned order dated 10.9.2004, his claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that in the year 1993-94, 98. 99. 2000 and 2001, he worked for certain period which did not amount to continuous working in service throughout though under Rules 2001 he was required to work continuously. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally illegal and has misapplied Rule 2001 inasmuch the only requiremen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »