Allahabad Court September 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.
Up Ganna Aayukta and Zila Ganna Adhikari Vs. Up Shram Aayukta,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1136]
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for State-respondents and Sri Shiv Avtar Sharma appearing for respondent No. 3.By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 22.05.2004 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Saharanpur under Section 33-C(2) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (for short the 'Act') directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 48,875/- as wages for the period 1.2.1994 to 11.7.1995 and the consequential order dated 22.7.2004 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Saharanpur Kshetra, Saharanpur under Section 33-C(1) of the Act for recovery of the said amount.2. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under;Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Kamdar vide order dated 8.10.1954 in the year 1965. The post of Kamdar was re-designated as Ganna Gram Sewak and later on as Cane Supervisor (Ganna Paryavekshak) ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Renu Sagar Power Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR94(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, referred the following question relevant to the assessment year 1979-80 for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the expenditure by the assessee on replacement on one turbine rotor amounting to Rs. 1,05,44,904 was on account of current repairs and as such, it was revenue account expenditure2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a captive power plant for M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. (Hindalco). It is a hundred per cent, subsidiary company of Hindalco. During the relevant assessment year 1979-80 it had two thermal power plants of generating capacity of 67.5 MW each. During the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed revenue expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,05,44,904 as cost of turbine rotor. The said expenditure was disallowed by the assessing authority as it was treated a...
Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Arjun Dev Kehar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC571
Dilip Gupta, J.1. The Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for condoning the delay of two years and 305 days in filing this second appeal.2. In support of the application, an affidavit has been sworn by Sri S.K. Jaiswal Joint Secretary (Legal) in the Development Authority and the reasons given for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit. It has been stated that First Appeal No. 286 of 1998 out of which the present second appeal arises was pending in the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The officer on special duty by the office note dated 3.5.2001, directed the suit clerk of the Development Authority to give the status of the aforesaid first appeal and by the office note dated 5.5.2001 it was brought to the knowledge of the Officer on Special Duty that the s...
Ramesh Chandra Shashikant Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST177(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These three 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 February 27, 2003 for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1988-89.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of foodgrain, etc., and during the years under consideration, dispatched goods for sale to alleged consignment agent Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta through the transport companies Allahabad Azamgarh Forwarding Agencies, Allahabad Janpur Road Lines, Allahabad and Allahabad Gora-khpur Road Lines. In support of the claim that the goods were dispatched to Calcutta for sale through consignment agent, form F obtained from such consignment agent was furnished before the assessing authority. It appears that the assessing authority doubted the transaction and form F issued by the consignment agent, and inquires were made from the transport companies as well as Ganga E...
Krishna Brickfield Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST889(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 February 1, 2003.2. The applicant owned brick-kiln and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of bricks. The applicant was subjected to assessment for the sales of bricks under Section 7 of the Act. The assessing authority initiated the proceeding under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Director of Movement (Coal), U.P., Lucknow that the applicant was allotted three boxes and four boxes of coal in the month of January, February, and March, 1993. The applicant appeared before the assessing authority and submitted that against the said allotment, coals were not purchased and brought inside the State of U.P. The assessing authority however had not accepted the plea of the applicant and had presumed that the coals against the said allotment had been purchased and imp...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Rajdut Paint Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: (2009)24VST182(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 September 7, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1998-99, by which Tribunal has deleted the penalty under Section 15A(1)(c) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party/dealer (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of paints and disclosed a taxable turnover at Rs. 1,58,94,193. The assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover at Rs. 1.62 crores by way of best-judgment assessment. The enhancement of the turnover has been made mainly on account of difference in the stock found at the time of survey dated June 6, 1993 made by the S.T.O. (S. I. B.) and on the basis of entries made in exhibit 8, which was the notebook for the period April 8, 1993 to April 6, 1993 (sic). According to the assessing authority, the ...
Sukhwasi Son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ472
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The, following question, has been referred, for consideration;Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the F.I.R. and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases2. Before, proceeding to discuss the pros and cons of the issue, it would not be out of place to mention that this controversy would have not arisen, if provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been drafted in a more explicit manner. It could have been mentioned that the Magistrate in his discretion direct registration of the first information report or it could have been mentioned that he should direct registration of a first information rep...
Amit Kumar Sharma Son of Sri Nath Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR847]
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for modification of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2006.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise this case are that the petitioners-appellants claim to have been working with the respondent Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter called the 'Authority') as Daily Wagers since long, as they had been engaged between the period 01.12.1996 to 01.01.2000. A combined seniority list of such daily wagers was prepared according to their dates of engagement. The Government issued an order dated 13.04.1998 which provided to consider such persons engaged on daily wages for regularisation provided they had been appointed prior to 19.12.1989. Subsequently, the Government issued another order dated 07.03.2001 for considering the regularisation of such persons who had been appointed before 29.06.1991. A large number of w...
Satyavir Singh S/O Late Shri Om Prakash and Dheer Shiksha Prasar Samit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC9
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna, appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd August, 2007 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Meerut in Land Acquisition Reference No. 684 of 1997 Murtaza Hasan v. State of UP. and Ors. rejecting the applications 24-C and 26-C.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State Government on, 6th February, 1990 for acquiring the land for Meerut Development Authority. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made on 22nd March, 1990. The respondent No. 4, Murtaza Hasan, was original tenure holder of plots of Khasra No. 636, 690, 691 and 693. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 5th August, 1991. The Special Land Acquisition Off...
Public Sector Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Saravjanik K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1697
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2006 (Annex. 1) by which the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the allotment of Plot 6, Sector - Pi, Greater Noida made in favour of the petitioner Society.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 2, Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (hereinafter called the 'Greater Noida') invited applications for allotment of two group housing residential plots - one plot was reserved for allotment in favour of Cooperative Housing Society consisting of members who are employees of government department and the other plot was kept open for general category. The petitioner-Society applied for allotment of the first plot on 18.02.2003 annexing along with its application form, a bank draft of Rs. 20,74,000/- as registration fee. The respondent No. 2 screened the applications and made allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society on 28.03.2003 and subsequently, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »