Allahabad Court July 2007 Judgments

Ram Nath Son of Shri Shyam Kishore and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acqui ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3604

Prakash Krishna, J.1. The only point mooted in the present appeal is whether a land owner is en tilled to get interest from the date of possession of the land acquired by the State Government where possession was taken by the State Government even before the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition Act.2. The facts in brief are as follows:Chak No. 433 area 260 links situate in Village Katghar Lalganj, Tappa Haveli, Pergana Deogaon, Tahsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh was acquired by the State Government for construction of Tikargarh Minor Canal Division 23. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 15.9.1984 and the notification under Section 6(1) is dated 29th of September, 1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 23rd of September 1986 determined the prevailing market value of the land acquired on the relevant date i.e the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. ...

B. Agarwal Stone Product Limited Through Its Managing Director, Birsh ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3470

B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.1. A Division Bench of this Court, while examining the validity of the bye-laws framed by the Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra relating to levy of fee on tractor and truck used for collecting 'gitti', stones, boulders, 'surkhi', coal and coal dust from the mining areas situated within the rural areas of Zila Panchayat Sonebhadra and transporting or storing the said minerals within or outside the district, expressed its inability to agree with the view taken in paragraph 6 of the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Okhla Sand Supply Co. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001 (1) AWC 803 and has, therefore, referred the following two questions of law to the larger Bench:(1) Whether the view taken in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Division Bench in Okhla Sand Supply Co. v. State (supra) lays down the correct legal position?(2) Whether Section 239 read with Sections 142, 143 and Ors. provisions in the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Z...

The Committee of Management, Methodist Girls' Intermediate College thr ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3303

Janardan Sahai, J.1. The Methodist Girls Inter College, Moradabad is Christian minority institution governed by of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. It has a scheme of administration which was approved by the Director of Education in the year 1984. The institution is managed by a committee of management, the constitution of which is provided in Section III of the scheme of administration. It consists of three categories of members- (A) Ex-Officio members consisting of the Bishop of the area, the Chairman of the Board of Education and Chrostian Nurture of the Conference concerned or a representative of the Board, the District Superintendent, the Pastor of the Church, the Manager of the institution, the principal of institution, the staff representatives as prescribed by the Regulations, the Central Treasurer/Conference Treasurer (any one of the two) and the Associate Education, Secretary of the Council of Christian Education and Christian Nurture, (B) Nominated Members consisting of - tw...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bareilly Development Authority

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(All)100; [2008]299ITR394(All)

R.K. Agarwal, J.1. The Income 1 ax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ha. referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstance s of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in cancelling the penalties amounting to Rs. 67,618/- and v. 1, 99, 888/- imposed under Section 201(1)/221 for the default during the financial years 1982-83 and 1983-84?2. The reference relates to the Financial Years 1982-83 and 1983-84 in proceedings relating to imposition of penalty under Section 201(1)/221 of the Act.3. The respondent assessee is a Development Authority. During the aforesaid financial years, the Development Authority failed to comply with the provisions regarding tax deducted at source from the amount paid to various contractors. It had also not filed the appropriate form with the Income-tax Department nor the amount of tax deducted at source from time ...

Shyam Lal and anr. Vs. Vijay Singh Alias Bijendra Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2008All1; 2007(4)AWC3456

Pankaj Mithal, J.1. List revised. Heard Sri Sharad Malaviya on behalf of appellants. No one appears for the respondents.2. The only substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether suit of plaintiffs/appellants for permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 970 which was decreed by the trial court could have been dismissed merely on the ground that plaintiffs-appellants have not mentioned the boundaries of the plot, even though the said plot of land was duly demarcated by the revenue authorities by order dated 31st January, 1969 and was identifiable on the spot.3. The plaintiffs-appellants brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from encroaching upon their bhoomidari plot No. 970 situated at Mauza Dev Khera pergana Etmadpur District Agra. According to them, the said plot was duly demarcated by the revenue authorities on 31st January, 1969 and aforesaid demarcation was confirmed by the S.D.O., Etmadpur on 30th May, 1969. The suit was c...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahendra Kumar Bansal

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(All)349; [2008]297ITR99(All)

R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is correct in law to set aside the order of CIT passed Under Section 263, holding that it was based on mere suspicion and surmises?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is legally correct to hold that the order of the ITO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is legally correct to draw a conclusion that the CIT has failed to establish nexus between the stock found at the time of search with the assessment under appeal?2. The reference relates to the Assessment Years 1983-84 to 1985-86.Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assesse...

Abdul Sattar Vs. Mohammad Saleem and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2007All198; 2007(4)AWC4075

ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Sir Anant Vijay, the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1. No one appears for the remaining respondents.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition alleging that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the real brothers and that they were living in the house which was owned by their father Nadey Ali and was being occupied jointly by all the brothers. Subsequently, a new house was constructed by their father in which the plaintiff and three brothers including defendant No. 1 started living in that house and one of the brothers remained in the old house. Upon their father's death, the plaintiff contended, that each brother claimed to occupy a portion of the house as per their convenience, and that there was no formal partition of their shares in the property in dispute by metes and bounds. Consequently, the suit for portion was filed.3. The defendant No. 1 resi...

Mohd. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3309

ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The issue is related to recovery of further stamp duty for a sum of Rs. 1,22,900 as per the order of the Registrar dated 10.7.2003.2. The fact remains that in an auction held by the authority, the petitioner was offered to run a slaughter house on payment of Rs. 5,30,000 as licence fee for five years w.e.f. 1.7.1998 to 1.7.2003. After expiry of the earlier period of licence, a fresh auction was held when the offer was given for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 which was the highest bid. This was made for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 5.2.2003 to 4.7.2008. An agreement was executed on 10.7.2003 on payment of stamp duty of Rs. 100 on execution of the document. Thereafter a notice has been issued demanding a sum of Rs. 1,22,900. However, ultimately the Registrar held against the petitioner and demanded the said sum. Although the provision of appeal is available but since the question has been decided by this Court in the case in Strong Construction v. State of U.P. 2005 (98) RD ...

Rajni Kant Tiwari and anr. Vs. Smt. Chandrawati and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4219

S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing, no one appeared for the respondents, hence only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant were heard.2. Revision is withdrawn/treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24, C.P.C. This. revision has been filed by the plaintiffs and is directed against order dated 10.9.1990 passed by Civil Judge, Basti in O.S. No. 26 of 1964. Through the said order, two applications given by plaintiffs/applicants numbered as 589ga and 590ga have been rejected. Thorough the first application, an earlier order dated 11.5.1990 was sought to be recalled.3. In the suit several issues were framed. The burden to prove the issues No. 2A, 2B and 4 was upon the defendants. Accordingly, defendants adduced the evidence on the said issues. Thereafter on 11.5.1990, plaintiffs were directed to lead evidence and defendants were permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of plaintiffs after closer/completion of evidence of plaintiffs. The situatio...

Dr. Gorakh Prasad S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The applicant is Medical Practitioner working with North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. His grievance is that vide order dated 22.8.2003 (page 22 of the O.A.), he was ordered to be posted at Gorakhpur in place of Dr. S.K. Sinha, JMO, IRMS, the order was not implemented in full. The transfer order was issued at the request of Dr. S.K. Sinha.However, thereafter he changed his mind and requested the Competent Authority for retaining him where he was. Applicant, however, was already relieved from his post, he joined at Gorakhpur for the new assignment on 15.9.2003. After the order in respect of Dr. Sinha is cancelled, he could not be accommodated in only place of Pathology at Gorakhpur, therefore, he was kept in the general pool of Doctors. He was an officer of S.A.G Grade and, therefore, he is Senior to Dr.Sinha. As Senior Doctor, he should have been posted as Pathologi...