Allahabad Court April 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.
Rotary International and anr. Vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC3037
A.N. Varma, J.1. Through the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a direction has been sought by the petitioners from this Court commanding the opposite party No. 1 to act within the bounds of jurisdiction vested in him and not to give any effect to the notice dated 3.3.2007, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on the application under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of C.P.C. It has further been prayed that opposite party No. 1 be directed not to proceed any further with the said application until the appeal pending against the original order dated 28.11.2006 is decided in accordance with the directions issued by the lower appellate court and to keep the proceedings of the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal.2. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 instituted a suit for injunction, being Regular Suit No. 459 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow. An application un...
Gorakhpur Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR205(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee-co-operative society from recovery of pay made from the staff, recovery of training cost and security forfeiture from staff is not attributable to its business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and hence not deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1988-89.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members. The receipts shown by it included the following items:Rs.(i) Pay recovered from resigned ...
Parishudh Machines Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST547(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 2, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1996-97.2. The applicant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The applicant was engaged in the business of sophisticated cylindrical grinding machines. During the year under consideration the applicant had sold one such machine to M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon against bill No. 07, dated April 25, 1996 for Rs. 65,43,222. Against the aforesaid bill on the claim of the purchaser that the machine was not properly working and as a result of negotiations credit note for Rs. 14,29,900 was issued by the applicant in favour of M/s. Munjal Showa Limited, Gurgaon. The sale consideration was reduced by Rs. 14,29,900 and on the balance amount the liability of tax has been admitted. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of reduction of the sale...
Kumari Kavita Sharma D/O Late Onkar Nath Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR171]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Late Onkar Nath Sharma. father of the petitioner died in harness on 18.6.1989. The petitioner applied for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 and was appointed on the post of temporary Junior Clerk vide order dated 22.2.1990. Thereafter, her services have been terminated on 6.9.1990 on the ground of her being underage by lour months at the time of her appointment.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature and services of an employee appointed under the aforesaid Rules cannot be terminated without any prior notice or opportunity of being heard.4. Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner has been in continuous service till date on the strength of interim order dated 11.10.1990 passed by this Cou...
Keshav Prasad Gupta Son of Sri Mangal Prasad Vs. U.P. Project Corporat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3525; [2007(113)FLR1068]
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28 th November, 2006 in so far as petitioner is concerned. A writ for striking down Regulation 26 of the U.P. Project Corporation Service Regulations dated 27th October, 1986 has also been sought for. Further a mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent-Corporation to suitably amend Regulation 26 of the U.P. Project Corporation Ltd. Services Regulations fixing the age of retirement as 60 years brining it in conformity with the Fundamental Rule 56.3. The impugned order is an office order providing that employees mentioned in the order after attaining the age of 58 years shall attain the age of superannuation on different dates as mentioned in the order.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order, contended that the age of retirement of the employees of the Project Corporation shall also be treated as 60 years in view of the amendme...
Subhash Son of Rohtas Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Secretary, Panchay ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2561
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2005 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2, the State Station Election Commission, countermanding the election of the Member of the Zila Panchayat.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a notification was issued by respondent No. 2 for holding elections of Members of the Zila Panchayat on 23.09.2005 under the provisions of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Adhiniyam 1961'). The petitioner contested the election for the said post and the voting took place peacefully on 23.10.2005 without any interruption or hindrance. The votes polled on 23.10.2005 were to be counted on 25.10.2005. However, the respondent No. 2, in exercise of the powers under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 260B of the Adhiniyam 1961, countermanded the election by the impugned order on the ground that one candidate namely S...
Kehri Singh Son of Man Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3787
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The prayer in both the writ petitions is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land allotted to them without following the procedure provided under the Act (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). The following are the respondents in the writ petition:1. The State of U.P. through Collector, Mathura2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mant, District Mathura3. The Tehsildar Mant, District Mathura4. Gaon Sabha village, and Mauja Mant Raja, Tahsil and Pargana Mant, District Mathura through its Pradhan2. All the petitioners in both the writ petitions claimed to be allottees of different portions of land of different plots from the Land Management Committee. It has further been stated in both the writ petitions that all the petitioners were granted Asami pattas in the year 1967. Most of the petitioners are stated to have been allotted an area of 1.2 hectares each. However, it is stated that some petition...
Yashpal Singh Son of Sri Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)AWC2775
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. In proceedings under Section 10[2] of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960, the prescribed authority passed an order dated 30.12.1974, declaring two bighas, 7 biswa and 12 biswansi of land as irrigated surplus land. By a notification dated 29.9.1975 issued under section 14 [41 the surplus land was acquired by the State authorities. After a lapse of nearly nine years, a notice under Section 13-A dated 14.10.1983 was issued by the respondents alleging that on account of a mistake in the earlier notice dated 30.12.1974, certain plots of land could not be included and therefore, the respondents directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the earlier order be not rectified and further the land be not declared as surplus. The petitioner filed his objections and submitted that the proceedings cannot be re-opened under ...
Mahesh Singh Yadav Son of Shri Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR741]
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner joined the Civil Police as a Constable on 15.3.1975. He was placed under suspension by order dated 7.6.1988. Thereafter a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. Then by order dated 13.9.1991 passed by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 23010 of 1993, in which initially an interim order was granted but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3. The same was dismissed on 20.1.2000. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of Police, which was also dismissed on 23.7.2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 13.9.1991, 20.1.2000 and 23.7.2000, this writ petition has been filed.2. I have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Counsel ap...
Jai Shree Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST841(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Heard Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department.2. In these two revisions, assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 are involved. Raising a short controversy, the present revisions have been filed. The applicant claimed that he is carrying on the business in trading agency in food grain and raab. The applicant's claim that certain purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal have not been accepted by any of the authorities.3. Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that purchases were not made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal, on its true and correct understanding of the transaction entered into by the applicant, is nothing but purchases made in the course of inter-State purchases.4. The facts, which are not in dispute, may be noted in this regard. According to the own showing of the applicant, the buyers from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »