Allahabad Court May 2007 Judgments

Hiltrex Industrial Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Managing Director, Madhyancha ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4221

S.N. Srivastava and S.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. By way of this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 17.3.2007 and electricity bill dated 24.3.2007 and further prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to follow the orders passed by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 11.7.2006 as well as clarification order dated 14.9.2006, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition and also to permit the petitioner to allow power loom benefit as per orders dated 11.7.2006 and 14.9.2006 passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.2. The petitioner in the instant petition claims himself to be a consumer of electricity with HV2 category connection. The aforesaid company is registered company running a power loom where thread is manufactured. It would appear that in order to provide certain benefits to the weaker sections of the society i.e., weaver, the State of U.P., issued Government order dated 14.6.2006, ...

Delhi Public School through Its Superintendent Vs. Enforcement Officer ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR404]

V.K. Shukla, J.1. Delhi Public School, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, is a covered establishment under the provision of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.2. During the course of the various inspection carried out in the institution, the Area Enforcement Officer noticed that contractors employees including canteen contractor, transport contractor, doctor and cycle stand contractor have not been covered by the Management for the purpose of extending Provident Fund benefits. The Management of the institution was asked to remedy the said situation by computing quantum of arrears dues to be paid in respect of said category of employees on 22.11.1996, No action was taken and thereafter notice for initiating proceeding under Section 7A(3) of the Act was issued on 22.01.1997. Petitioners submit that immediately, thereafter reply was filed on 1.3.1997 mentioning therein that they are employees of Contractors and there does not exist master and servant relationship in ...

Sankarshan Mishra Son of Tapeshwari Prasad Vs. the State of Uttar Prad ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4217

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was Head Clerk of Shri Krishna Pandey Inter College. Basti (for short 'College'), and the Principal were removed from service vide order dated 14.6.1979.District Inspector of Schools, Basti refused to accord approval to the resolution dated 14.6.1979 removing the petitioner and Principal of the College from service vide letter dated 25.6.1979.3. Show cause notice dated 12.7.1979 was issued to the petitioner by the Committee of Management and thereafter vide letter dated 2.8.1979, the Committee of Management informed the District Inspector of School (for short 'DIOS') about reiterateration of its earlier decision of punishment. The District Inspector of Schools again refused to accord approval to aforesaid Resolution of punishment vide his letter dated 31.8.1979/1.9.1979. 3. Thereupon, the Committee of Management preferred an appeal before the R...

Akash Sharma S/O Late Sri H.D. Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Through Secret ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3899

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The citizens have a fundamental right to good governance which is possible only if government servants are politically neutral and arc not transferred or otherwise victimised at the instance of a political party or politician.2. Transfer is an exigency of service. A government employee has no choice in the matter of posting. Transfers are 10 be done only in administrative exigencies and in public interest. No rules have been framed as to how and when a government servant is to be transferred. However, the State Government, from time to time, comes out with a policy, for transfer of government servants.3. The latest transfer policy announced by the State Government is dated 11.5.2006 for the year 2006-07 which contemplates transfer on administrative ground, transfer on account of promotion, termination and retirement. Transfer can also be made on account of personal reason of a government servant such as medical aid, education, transfer on mutual consent of the empl...

Rajendra Prasad Agarwal Son of Lala Ram Kishan Vs. the Regional Deputy ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3924

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade in D.A.V. Inter College, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar in the month of October, 1950. We was promoted as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the said college in July, 1955. Thereafter he was promoted as Lecturer vide order dated 8th July, 1960. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 28.11.1960 but he was not being paid the salary of the Lecturer Grade.3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the representations were made by the petitioner to the District Inspector Schools for payment of difference of salary of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and Lecturer Grade as he had been discharging the duty of post of Lecturer w.e.f. 8.7.1960. Ultimately, the petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 16.7.1988 by the Committee of Management that in view of the or...

Ram Prasad S/O Shri Sidhnath Vs. Nagar Palika Chunar Through Its Secre ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR52]

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in these connected writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided together treating Civil Misc. Writ No. 16577 of 1999 as the leading case.2. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wage basis as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 1.9.1990. His salary from January 1992 was not paid to him compelling him to file the connected Civil Misc. Writ No. 10667 of 1992, in which the following interim order was passed on 30.3.1992:Hon. S.R. Singh, J.Issue notice.Meanwhile, if the petitioner's services have not already been terminated by giving a month's notice as wages in lieu thereof besides retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, he would be allowed to continue in service and paid his wages until and order of termination/retrenchment is passed in the manner indicated in the aforesaid instructio...

Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. P.K. Agriculture Industries

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)14VST468(All)

Vikram Nath, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1998-99 (U. P.). The questions of law sought to be raised in this revision are as follows:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold the dealer non-taxable despite the adverse material available on record indicates otherwise?(ii) Whether the Tribunal has properly utilised the adverse material available on record?3. The dealer is involved in manufacturing and sale of agricultural implements for the assessment year in question. He had filed his returns and claimed there was no tax liability. The assessing officer disbelieved the returns and imposed tax liability of Rs. 40,000 by the order dated January 29, 2000.4. Aggrieved by the same, the dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was partly allowed and the Deputy Commissioner reduced the tax liability from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 16,000 by...

Mentha and Allied Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2008]302ITR144(All)

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the assessee and learned Counsel for the Income-tax Department.2. The following four questions have been referred in this case, two at the instance of the assessee and two at the instance of the Department:At the instance of the assessee:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in accordance with law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,93,793 being the compensation payable to M/s. M.W. Hardy and Co., New York?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of law, the Tribunal was right in holding that relief under Section 80HHA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was to be computed after adjusting the loss of the 'head office set' against the profit of the branch?At the instance of the Revenue:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that cash com...

Shambhu Kumar S/O Sri Jagdish Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. As the two O.As revolve on the same issues namely illegality or otherwise of cancellation of the provisional panel in respect of the post of Commercial Inspector, these two cases are being disposed of by a common and consolidated order.2. Briefly stated the applicants are serving as Senior Clerks in the Commercial Branch and are entitled to participate in the departmental examination for the post of Commercial Inspector in the Grade of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The respondents have initially circulated the list of the eligible candidates for the post of Commercial Inspector, but, for some certain reasons they initially cancelled the notification atleast twice. Finally, the respondents circulated the list of eligible candidates to participate in the examination for promotion to the aforesaid post, on 20.7.2004 and in the examination the applicants in both the O.As appeared. By Annexure A-10 order (in O.A. No. 971 of 2005) dated 15.10.2004 the respondents declared the result of written test i...

Maiku Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant in OA 480/05 has filed this review application, contending that after the judgment was reserved by an M.A. Documentary evidences to prove that the nature of initial appointment of the applicant was against regular vacancy and through the proper procedure of recruitment had been filed but the same had not been considered while passing the order.2. The applicant was expected to submit such documents as a part of pleadings and if there be any such documents filed after the hearing, the same cannot be taken into account without due notice to the respondents. Be that as it may; the OA had been only disposed of with liberty to the applicants in all the O.As in the common order to make a representation if the applicants could prove that their initial appointment was against regular vacancy. The doors are not shut for the applicants once and for all.3. The documents annexed to the Review have been perused and certainly the same gives an impression that the applicant though ap...