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.
Saru Copper Aloys Semis (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Sri Sanjeev JaIn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST476(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd October, 1999 relating to the assessment years, 1994-95 and 1995-96 under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Central Act').2. The short question involved in the present revisions relates to the refund of the amount. For the assessment year, 1994-95 and 1995-90 as against the tax due the excess amount deposited by the applicant was to the extent of Rs. 1,85,264.50 and Rs. 3,73,453/- respectively. The applicant had claimed refund of the aforesaid amount being the amount in excess of the tax due. Assessing authority refused to refund under Section 29-A of the Act on the ground that the applicant had realized the aforesaid amount from the customers. Thus, not refundable to the applicant but to the customers under Section 29-A(3) of the Act. The view of the assessing authority has been upheld i...
Atar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2704
ORDERAnjani Kumar and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 3rd January, 2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notifying for general information that the land mentioned in the Schedule was needed for a public purpose namely for Hi-Tech Township, Agra. It has further been mentioned in the said notification that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable since the land was urgently required for construction of the aforesaid Township and, therefore, in view of the pressing urgency as well as to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the direction under Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued for elimination of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the ...
Kamal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3005
ORDERAnjani Kumar and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 3rd January, 2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notifying for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a public purpose namely for Hi-Tech Township, Agra. It has further been mentioned in the said notification that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable since the land was urgently required for construction of the aforesaid Township and, therefore, in view of the pressing urgency as well as to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the direction under Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued for elimination of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the A...
Kapil Kumar Goyal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC641
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Smt. Iti Goyal @ Renu Singhal opposite party No. 2 complainant, filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr P.C. against her husband Kapil, applicant No. 1 her husband's parents Smt. Sushila and Suresh Kumar, applicant Nos. 5 and 6, her husband's elder and younger brothers Manoj Kumar and Jyoti, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and the married sister Smt. Babli, applicant No. 4 under Section 498A and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act before the Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar for issuance of instructions to the police for registration of a case, and to investigate the same. The Magistrate, treating it as a complaint (Complaint No. 3630 of 2006) after examining the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 ordered issuance of summons under Section 498A and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act against them.2. That is what brings the applicants to this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.Heard Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate Counsel for the applicants and Addl. Governm...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Vs. Sur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1466; 2007(2)AWC2111
Amitava Lala, J. 1. There is a delay of live days. An application is made for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Claimants respondents/caveators No. 1 & 2 appeared and contended that he has no objection in condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The defendents/respondent No. 3 did not appear but he has been absolved from responsibility therefore, there cannot be any embargo in passing any order in condoning the delay. No order is passed as to costs. 2. It is a case of death of live years old boy. The compensation is awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- by filing the process of multiplier of 15 as per second schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before this Court that the apportionment of the amount would be on the basis of multiplier of the age of the parents. Admittedly the age of the lather is 30 years when the age of the mother is 28 years. If we go by the process on the ...
Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2228
ORDERBarkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The applicant in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is an Arms Clerk in the Ria Bareilly Collectorate. He is said to have demanded Rs. 2400/- from the Opp. Party No. 2 as bribe for grant of arms licence, in which connection he is sought to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. At the commencement of Trial before the Special Judge, the applicant raised a plea that he could not be prosecuted without a sanction being obtained from the District Magistrate, who was his appointing authority and since no sanction has been obtained, the prosecution could not proceed. The learned Judge overruled this objection and held by his order dated 9-12-1998 that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the applicant.3. The only question canvassed at the bar and arising in the petition, therefore, is whether sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was necessary or not?4. Heard Sri P. C...
Rao Mashkur Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(78)AWC2155
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 6.8.1984 and 4.7.2000 passed by prescribed authority and appellate authority, respectively arising out of proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of paragraph 12 of the writ petition urged that possession of petitioner on the land in dispute was not taken by authority concerned on the basis of order passed by prescribed authority. He urged that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has already been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit by retaining possession of land in dispute under Section 3 of Act No. 15 of 1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chabi Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2005 (2) AWC 1405, in support of his cas...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. Lala Pratap Bhan Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2505
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is tenants' writ petition. It arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 66 of 1982 filed by the respondent-landlords for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and eviction against Smt. Manju Devi (i.e., the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners). The said suit has been decreed on 9th February, 1998 by the Judge Small Causes Court and the said decree has been affirmed in S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 1998.2. Sri M.D. Mishra, advocate, in support of the writ petition has submitted that the finding of the courts below that a sum of Rs. 1,300 was not advanced by the tenants as advance money to the landlord is incorrect and if the said finding is recorded in favour of the petitioners, there would be no default in payment of rent. The burden of proof of payment of rent lies on the landlords respondent and it has been wrongly placed upon the tenant. Lastly, he has submitted that the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages was not maintainable before...
Dr. (Miss) Chandrawati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(All)20; [2008]301ITR172(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nursing home of the assessee could be treated to be a plant for the purposes of depreciation?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nursing home of the assessee could be treated as a hotel for the purposes of depreciation?2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1989-90.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The applicant's source of income is salary and profession. She is running a nursing home, called 'Krishna Medical Centre', at Lucknow. The applicant claimed depreciation on the building of the nursing home at the rate of 20 per cent, the rate applicable to a hotel. The assessee's claim before the AO was that the nursing home provided lodging to the patients on...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. H.C.L. Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST204(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated October 30, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1989-90 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of photocopier machine and was holding eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Act. In view of the eligibility certificate turnover of the dealer of the manufactured photocopier machine was not liable to tax. Along with photocopier machine dealer had also sold toner and developer and claimed exemption on the turnover of toner and developer as part of the photocopier machine. The claim of the dealer was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that toner and developer was not the part of the photocopier machine. However, the claim was allowed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »