Allahabad Court March 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.
Ram Lal Roshan Lal (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: [2008]299ITR431(All)
1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated December 15, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:3. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family. A search was conducted by the Income-tax Department in the residential premises of Roshan Lal, a member of the Hindu undivided family on March 15, 1983, when certain incriminating materials and documents were found in the search. The petitioner filed returns of income for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 voluntarily under the amnesty scheme which was in force at the time when the return was filed. The income disclosed after discussion was accepted. However, the assessing authority levied interest under Sections 139(8),...
Ram Manorath, Vs. Surya Pal S/O Bodal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2396
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This Review Application has been filed to review my judgment dated 8.12.2004 on the ground that no permission of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was necessary to execute sale deed in respect of a land which was already excluded from the consolidation scheme at the initial sage of consolidation as is clear from Exhibit 27-C and further that the execution of a sale deed of entire share of a cotenureholder in a land not in the consolidation scheme did not hit by Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the date of execution of sale deed and could not be declared invalid under Section 45(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.2. Opp. Parties were directed to file counter affidavit. After exchange of Pleadings between the parties, parties were also heard on the Review Application.3. The dispute in the present case relates to Plot No. 386 (re-numbered as Plot No. 348 in the consolidation proceedings). The land was used as Abadi and was decl...
Harbansh Singh Son of Late Vishwanath Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2141
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions since raise common question of law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgement/Both the writ petitions arise out of proceedings of suits filed by the plaintiff under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act (in short the Act) and in both the cases petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Beard of Revenue impugned in the writ petitions wherein the Board Of Revenue has decided the second appeal filed before Board of Revenue against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a second appeal lies against the judgement and order of lower appellate court in view of the provisions of Section-331 (4) of the Act which is reproduced below:331 (4) that a second appeal shall he on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under Sub-section (3) to the authority, if any mentioned against it in column 6 of the S...
J.P. Gupta and anr. Vs. Smt. Heera Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2143
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16th February 2000 passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by the appellate authority under the Act.2. The brief facts are that Smt. Heera Gupta, respondent, and her husband Kishori Lal Gupta were the landlords of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop. On 8th March, 1984 both the landlords filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against two tenants, the petitioner and one Hukamchand jointly for the release of both the shops. It appears that on 17th May, 1984 the application against both the tenants, namely Hukamchand and the present petitioner J.P. Gupta was allowed ex parte and both the shops were directed to be released in favour of landlords.3. Petitioners filed application for setting aside ex parte order...
Gandhi Ashram, Branch Bazaar Ganj Vs. Umesh Chandra Agrawal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2133
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is tenant of the shop in dispute, has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as 'the Act' dated 8th October, 2003, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority under 'the Act' dated 5th February, 1999 and directed release of the shop in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in dispute from the time of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal, who was landlord, which is not disputed. The respondent Umesh Chandra Agrawal is the son of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal and as per the case set up by respondent Umesh Cha...
Shree NaraIn Gupta Vs. Appellate Authority/Deputy Transport Commission ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2212
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Shri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devendra Kumar appearing for respondent No. 3.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by Registering Authority cancelling the transfer of Registration granted in favour of the petitioner of Vehicle No. UP-78/AD-1006. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 7.12.2006 which has been also been prayed to be quashed.3. Brief facts for deciding the writ petition are; the vehicle No. U.P. 78/AD-1006 was registered in the name of one San) ay Kumar Gupta who died on 3.8.2004. After death of Sanjay Kumar Gupta the petitioner filed an application in form 29 and form 30 on 19.8.2004 alongwith an affidavit dated 3.8.2004 praying that the vehicle be transferred in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of said application the vehicle was transferred in favo...
Smt. Risalo (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2485
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Smt. Risalo challenges the order passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 13th April, 1998, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24th January, 1998 has been dismissed. The order dated 24th January, 1998 was passed by the trial court on the application moved by the petitioner in Original Suit No. 181 of 1989. It so happen that the Suit No. 181 of 1989 is decreed ex parte on 30th May, 1989. The petitioner filed application for recall of the order decreeing the Suit No. 181 of 1989 by way of an application under Order IX, Rule 13, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioner filed a suit before Munsif concerned being Suit No. 743 of 1992. In the aforesaid Suit No. 743 of 1992, the defendant-contesting respondent in this petition filed written statement on 8th S...
Shesh Nath Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2309
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By this writ petition order dated 3rd May, 2006, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur allowing the Appeal of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Kauri Ram, district Gorakhpur and by the connected Writ Petition No. 31223 of 2006 the order dated 17.5.2006, passed by the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur allowing the Recall Application setting aside the earlier order passed on appeal and directing the matter to be heard and decided on merits are impugned.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It was urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner Shesh Nath in Writ Petition No. 26859 of 2006 that no appeal lies against an order appointing two persons as licensees to distribute essential commodities through fair price shop bifurcating one shop.4. In this regard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha produced before me a Government order by which Government order dated 3rd July, 1990 was made operative.5. From per...
Smt. Vidyawati and ors. Vs. Xiith Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2448
S.U. Khan, J.1. Respondent No. 3 Shiv Sagar Tiwari filed O.S. No. 1931 of 1980 against Vidyawati petitioner No. 1, her husband Brij Bihari Shukla petitioner No. 2, Karamchari Nagar Housing Society petitioner No. 3 and Mohan Lal, Secretary of the Society petitioner No. 4.2. The allegation in the plaint was that the Cooperative Housing Society defendant No. 3 had allotted plot No. 158 to the plaintiff on 8.10.1971 through registered lease deed and possession had also been delivered to him, however on 6.12.1980, he found that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were making constructions over the said plot. The relief claimed was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making construction or encroaching upon the property. Relief of possession was also claimed. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement and pleaded that the society had allotted the plot in dispute to defendant petitioner No. 1 and hence they made constructions over the plot in dispute. It was further ple...
Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2468
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24th March, 2005, passed by Board of Revenue and also the order dated 30th June, 2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners and all family members entered into an oral family settlement to partition their shares by metes and bounds on 2nd February, 1970 of the property in dispute. On 27th September, 1997, petitioner No. 1 Pawan Kumar filed a civil suit being Suit No. 527 of 1997 for permanent injunction on the basis of family settlement dated 2nd February, 1970. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners 2 and 3, who were arrayed as defendants, filed Joint written statement on 5th December, 1997. Another defendant, namely, Smt. Anju also filed her written statement on 22nd December, 1997 in Suit No. 527 of 1997. The aforesaid Suit No. 527 of 1997 has been decreed by the ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »