Allahabad Court May 2007 Judgments

Awadhesh Kumar Son of Shri Nokhe Lal Vs. State of U.P. Through the Sec ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2007All190; 2007(4)AWC3339

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 16.2.2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur (Annexure 1 to the win petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Hamirpur to issue fresh notice in accordance with 1963 Rules.2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that a notice dated 17th September, 2006 issued under Rule 72 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is liable to be set aside as this is in contravention of Rule 24 of the Rules. The aforesaid notice has never been pasted on notice board or any publication in two newspapers have been made. Rule 72(1) of the 1963 Rules provides for a declaration that a particular area has bee one available for re-grant of mining leases specifying a date from which applications will be invited. The said date shall not be earlier than thirty days from the date of notice. Rule 72 is being quoted below:Rule 72. Availability of area for re-gra...

Christian Hospital Through Its Administration Manager Sri Saw K. Nyunt ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3935

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is a hospital, known as Christian Hospital Azamgarh, which is a charitable institution and is governed by its Managing Committee under the Church of Northern India Diocese of Lucknow which is registered under the Societies Registration Act. One of the aims and object of the hospital is to make available to the public, irrespective of race, caste, religion, creed or social conditions, the facility of a hospital and its community health services centre in the field of curative and preventive care and to provide training programme for doctors, nurses, mid wives, etc.2. It transpires that the labour inspector made an inspection, and thereafter, issued a notice to the hospital indicating that pursuant to the notification dated 6.8.1984, the hospital was covered under the Minimum Wages Act, and therefore, the petitioner was required to comply with the Minimum Wages Act and to pay, the minimum wages, to its employees. The petitioner filed a reply and submit...

Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Iqbal Ahmad L/H of Late Jullan

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(All)77

1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Revenue has been admitted by this Court vide order dt. 22nd Nov., 2000 on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee deduction under Section 54E read with Section 54H of the IT Act, 1961 for purchase of capital gains units for Rs. 88,053?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) dt. 30th Dec, 1992 directing the AO to allow the assessee deduction under Section 54E r/w Section 54H on account of the agricultural land purchased upto 31st Dec, 1991 for Rs. 6,80,808 whereas deduction under Section 54E has been erroneously considered and allowed by the AO to the extent of Rs. 3,74,960 in his set aside assessment order dt. 21st Oct., 1991 passed under Section 143(3)/251 of the Act, whereas the CIT(A) vide his order dt. 24th June...

Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Hindon Rubber Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)14VST50(All)

Prakash Krishna, J.1. The following questions of law have been framed in the memo of revision:1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to allow exemption on beltings as an agricultural implements?2. Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the beltings are not covered under Notification No. ST-2-5784/x-10(2)/80-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-81 dated September 7, 1981 as beltings of all kinds taxable at the rate of eight per cent?2. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is submitted that the assessment year 1990-91 (Central) is involved in the present case. The dealer-opposite party is a manufacturer and seller of rubber belting. The account books of the dealer was accepted by the assessing authority but its claim that no taxes were payable on the turnover of Rs. 10,94,593 being the sale of belts as part of agriculture imple...

Hindon River Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)14VST63(All)

Vikram Nath, J.1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1998-99 (Central). The questions of law sought to be raised in the revisions are as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in redetermining/rectifying the rate of tax on Central sales of cotton yarn under Section 22 of the Act, which is debatable question and involved change of mind?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting/granting benefit of form C, filed before the first appellate authority along with Section 12B application and denying the concessional rate of tax of two per cent on the sale of cotton yarn covered by C form?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order dated June 29, 2002, passed by the assessing authority under Section 22 of the Act, which is outside the purview of the power vested under Section 22 of the Act?4. Whether the Tribuna...

Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Vs. Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Anurakshan Khand ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR781]

Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsels for the parties arid perused th(sic) record.The petitioner was appointed under U.P. Dependents of Government (sic) Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 vide order dated 15 3.1989, appended a(sic) Annexure 1 to the writ petition on compassionate ground on account o(sic) accidental death of his father late Sri Frem Shankar Tiwari, who was a permanen(sic) Tubewell Operator in the Irrigation Department. The letter of appointment of the(sic) petitioner dated 153. 1989 is as under:dk;kZy; vf/k'k'kh vfHk;Urk uydwi vuqj{k.k [k.M] >kalhdk;kZy; Kki la[;k 128 ekg 3@89Jh jfoUnz dqekj frokjh iq= Lo- Jh izse'kadj frokjh dwi pkyd xzke m;djuiqj isk- ijor[kkuh ftyk okjk.klh dks fu;fer vf/k'Bku esa uydwi pkyd ds in ij osrueku 330&7&365&8&381 n-jks- 8&405&9&450 n-jks- 9&475 es 'kklukns'k la th&12@1973 dkfeZd&2 fnukad 22&6&84 es fufgr izkfo/kku ds vUrZxr e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa uydwi pkyd ds in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls fu;qfDr dh tkrh gS A ;g vkns'k loZFkk vLFk...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Dr. Vishwa Veer Singh

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant is the Union of India in this O.A., while the respondent is an officer functioning in the Respondent's organization.2. In 1977 when the respondent was transferred from Kanpur to Ambajhari, he prefered a representation for his retention in Kanpur for a period of 2 years, which was turned down by the applicant. The respondent was relieved by the Ordnance Facory, Kanpur but as the relieving order was not entertained by the respondent, service by affixture at his residence was effected. For about two years since the respondent was stated to be 'absconding', the applicant chose to issue a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 and inquiry conducted. Agreeing with the Inquiry Authority's findings, penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the respondent on 05-04-1982.3. Respondent filed civil suit No. 561/82 before the XI Additional Munsif Kanpur and the suit was allowed, and consequently, the applicant Union of India filed appeal before the Addl...

Muse Ram S/O Late Hira Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant herein, initially was appointed as LDC in 1973 and later on was promoted to the post of UDC, Head Clerk and then Office Superintendent, but in 1994 the applicant himself volunteered to inform the Respondents that his promotions under the reserved quota was erroneous as he belonged to General Category. Result, he was pushed back to the grade of LDC and departmental action initiated. However, on the sole ground that the applicant was truthful and he himself volunteered to come out to inform the Respondents of the erroneous promotions granted to him, the Disciplinary Authority thoroughly exonerated him. The question then was as to how to fit him in the ladder of cadre in the general category. The applicant was placed as UDC in 1988 with notional seniority, duly interpolated between 181 and 182 in the seniority list published in 1996, vide order No. 132 dated 22-04-2002. The applicant was in the said grade of UDC till recently and has since July, 2006 been stated to be fu...

Ram Lagan Yadav, Ex-senior a/Cs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, in OA No. 1295/03 by order dated 17th May 2004, extracting the relief as claimed by the applicant, which is identical to the relief claimed herein and on the submission of the respondents that the case has to be decided by the appropriate Authority at Northern Railway as the applicant had retired from service in January, 2003 while working in the Northern Railway, this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant. Time calendared was three months.2. In pursuance of the above order of the Tribunal, the Respondents had passed the impugned Annexure A-3 order dated 13-08-2004.3. Now brief facts of the case with terse sufficiency: The Railway Board, vide notification dated 24th January, 2001 issued the following order: (i) In the case of Group B Accounts Officer, the revised scale S-14 (Rs. 7500-12000) will be operatd to the extent of 20% of the total number of Group B Accounts Officer roll, includin...

Arun Kumar S/O Sri P.N. Roy, Ips Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The claim of the applicant is that though he was entitled to be appointed in the Indian Police Services from August, 1995, with year of allotment of 1989, he had been appointed under the provisions of Rule 9(I) of the Indian Police Service Rules 1954 in the Indian Police Service vide Annexure A-2 order dated 2nd February, 1996 and his year of allotment had been delayed by one year i.e. 1990 only. When vacancy arose in November, 1995, instead of considering immediately, the respondents due to their dilatory tactics delayed the promotion of the applicant, which could ultimately materialize only in February 1996 and this has caused irreparable loss to the applicant. He has, therefore, sought for the following reliefs: (a) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 23.1.98 by which the name of the applicant appears at sl. No. 12 and a seniority has been fixed w.e.f. 1990. (b) That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to refix the seniority of t...