Allahabad Court May 2007 Judgments

Sahab Singh, Accounts Officer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant at present functioning as Accounts Officer in the office of the 4th respondent is aggrieved by alleged wrong fixation of pay at the time of implementation of the V Central Pay Commission Recommendations.2. The applicant was, in July, 1992, promoted as Section Officer in the grade of Rs 1640 - 2900, and was further prmoted w.e.f. 11-03-1996 as Assistant Accounts Officer in the grade of 2000 - 3200. Since his date of increment in the earlier grade was first July, he had opted at the time of his promotion to the post of Asst. Accounts Officer for fixation of pay under FR 22 (1)(a)(1) (formerly FR 22-C), vide Annexure A-19. Thus, the applicant's pay as of 01-07-1996 was fixed at Rs 2,375/- in the scale of Rs 2,000 - 3,200/-. At the time of this promotion as well as fixation of pay, the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 were not notified. Thus, in the grade of Sr. Accounts Officer, the applicant was drawing at the time of promotion pay only in the pre-revised pay scale attached to t...

Maharaj Ji Education Trust and Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Allahabad

Reported in: I(2008)BC6

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25th August, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in T.A. No. 333/02 for issuance of recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 26,75,98,861/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 16% per annum with quarterly rest from the date of application after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited + cost.1. Appellant claims to be a public charitable trust registered on 6th January, 1993 at Chennai with its branch at Ghaziabad (U.P.) through Mrs. Kuyilambal wife of late Paramasiyam and Dr. P. Mahalingam with a view to impart medical education by establishing Nursing College, etc.to provide medical help and to plan such activities of the nature of general public utility. Dr. P. Mahalingam was shown as Chairman/Managing Trustee whereas Mrs. Kuyilambal was shown as a trustee. It is said that the purpose of above Trust was to impart medical education and it was running medical colleges in the name and style of Santosh Medical College, Santosh D...

General Manager, North Eastern Railway and ors. Vs. Shri Niwas Dubey a ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3406; [2007(115)FLR73]

Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 15th February, 2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') allowing Original Application No. 758 of 2006 of respondent No. 1, Shri Niwas Dubey have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was deputed to work as Vigilance Inspector in Vigilance Organization of the Railways and thereafter he was transferred from Varanasi to Ballia on the post of Commercial Superintendent. By the order dated 3rd January, 2006, the Divisional Commercial Manager (I), Varanasi placed him under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of suspension before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 564 of 2006, on the ground that before taking disciplinary action against him the consultatio...

Abdul Hamid (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3987

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Suit No. 75 of 1976 was filed for the eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed. The petitioner filed a revision which was allowed and the decree of eviction and for arrears was set aside by a Judgment dated 18.4.1978. The landlord did not pursue the matter and the matter become final. It transpires that the landlord issued a notice dated 17.10.1983, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent, w.e.f. 21.3.1973 and, on the ground of making material alteration in the building by construction of rooms thereby diminishing its value and utility. Upon the expiry of the period of notice, the landlord instituted a suit. The trial court, dismissed the suit, on the ground that there was no default and also on the ground that there was no construction in the tenanted premises and that the construction so made was outside the tenanted premises which did not diminish the va...

Shree Ram Dal Mill Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)14VST66(All)

Prakash Krishna, J.1. The applicant is a rice miller and is carrying on the business of manufacturing rice from paddy. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89. It arises out of the proceedings initiated by the department under Section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the applicant for levying penalty under aforesaid section.2. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant is a recognition certificate holder and is authorised to purchase paddy at the concessional rate of tax or without paying any tax for the purpose of manufacture of rice under Section 4B of the Act. It was found by the department that the applicant, who has purchased the paddy against form 4B, has not utilised the same in the manufacture of rice and has sold the same to other rice millers. On such quantity of paddy, after affording an opportunity of being heard, by the order dated August 28, 1993, a sum of Rs. one lac was levied as penalty. However, this order was rectified under Section 22 of the...

Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Control Switch Gears Company Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2009)20VST587(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 January 25, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. At the instance of the Revenue following questions have been raised:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to quash the demand of interest created under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the tax legally payable on the turnover admitted by the dealer?(ii) Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is correct in the eyes of law in the light of decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Qureshi Crucible Center [1993] 89 STC 467 : [1993] UPTC 901.3. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') was carrying on the business of manufactu...

Dubari and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR653]

Pradeep Kant and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Alok Sinha for the respondents.The petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that the persons junior to the petitioners have been given promotion on the post of District Commandant, Home Guards on 14.12.2005 but their case was not considered.2. Initially the Court directed the authority concerned to dispose of the pending representation of the petitioners which was rejected by means of order dated 22.4.2007. By means of order dated 22.5.2007 the order aforesaid also became the subject-matter of challenge by means of amendment application which stands allowed. The affidavits have been exchanged and therefore, we proceed to decide the writ petition on merit.3. At the very out set, we may put on record that it is admitted to the respondent-State that the case of the petitioners was not considered when the promotion of the persons junior to the petitioners was made....

Jokhai Prasad S/O Sri Sita Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. Briefly stated, the applicant in this case is aspirant for the post of GDSBPM at Mukarimpur Branch Office and amongst the candidates who applied for the said post. He was meritorious candidate with percentage of 53.33 in the qualifying examination. Necessary income certificate was also made available to the respondents within stipulated period and also provision to House the Post Office and self residence had been made by the applicant. It appears that respondent No. 4 is the second in the merit, he having secured 47.83% in the qualifying examination.He has also submitted necessary income certificate and also made provision for accommodation.2. The applicant having come to know that he was not selected for the post of EDBPM despite his merit in the qualifying examination approached this Tribunal seeking following reliefs: i. To issue on order, Rule or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of appointment of the Respondent No. 4, on the post of GDSBPM Mukarimpur, in...

Govind Printing Works and anr. Vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3513

R.P. Misra and Shishir Kumar, JJ.1. The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate and further quashing the notice dated nil Issued by respondent No. 5 contained as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive method against the petitioners.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of printing and is carrying on its business by dyeing/printing of cloths which are sent for job work by different companies and corporations. The respondent No. 1 U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited is also one of the concern which sends towels, sarees, malmal for job work of dyeing, printing, bleaching etc. to the petitioners and pays the job charges after completion of their work. The petitioners are dealing with the respondents since past about 15 years. According to the respondent No. 1 the petitioners' concern owes a sum of Rs. 3,58,828.91 to the Corporation. A...

Amrit Nagar Bhaupura Shahadara Vijai Nagar Bus Operators Welfare Assoc ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2008(1)AWC229

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. We have heard Mr. B. Malik in support of this petition and Mr. M.R. Jaiswal, who appears for the respondents.2. The first petitioner herein is a welfare association of the bus operators and the second petitioner is its member. The petition is filed to challenge the order dated 15th May, 2006 issued by he Regional Transport Officer, Ghaziabad informing the first petitioner-association that the amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2006, introduced in the year 2006, will be brought into force from the date it comes into force. It is to be noted that the slabs for rates of taxation for the motor vehicles under the statute have been changed from time to time. On the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', which came into force with effect from 15th December, 1997, for the purpose of levy of additional tax under Section 6 of the Act, the first four slabs relating to the ...