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.
Ajit Singh Vs. Mohd. Salim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC301
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri B.K. Narayana, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri T. P. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Anupam Kumar, advocate for the respondent.2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 5.10.1999, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 663 of 1985 confirming the judgment of 1st Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 5.10.1985 in Original Suit No. 172 of 1975.3. The plaintiff-appellant instituted original suit against the defendant-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell executed on 19.7.1974 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plot situated in village Sadiapur, Pargana Chail, district Allahabad. The sale consideration was agreed for an amount of Rs. 20,000, out of which Rs. 5,000 was paid as earnest money and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. At the relevant time U.P. Ceiling Act was in force and there was a restrict...
Lakhan Tomer Son of Shri Manbir Singh, Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1521
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Dileep Kumar and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsels for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. The prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the orders dated 1.7.2006, Annexure-VII to the writ petition, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerat and 1.8.2007, Annexure-IX to the writ petition, passed by Sessions Judge, Meerut. The second prayer is for a direction in the nature of mandamus for release of the petitioners under proviso of Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, in case crime No. 95 of 2006, Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut.3. The, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are partners of a firm in the name and style of M/s Mirnal Events & Exposition having its registered office at 31 Sarvodaya Colony, Civil Lines, Meerut. The petitioners organized a show of electronics/electrical/mechanical gadgets of the products of a number of manufacturing companies to educate the public at large imparting technical awareness of utilizing variou...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Bhola Bhandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST462(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present 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 May 27, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') was carrying on the business of foodgrains, oil-seeds, etc. It appears that the assessing authority has accepted the claim of the dealer but disallowed the claim of exemption on certain purchases on the ground that the dealer could not furnish the requisite form prescribed under Section 3D(7) read with rule 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. For the assessment year 1992-93 apart from the rejection of the claim of exemption on account of non-furnishing of requisite form, the claim of exemption for Rs. 1,16,87,000 against form IIIC(2) No. 298093 was disallowed on the ground that in the said form IIIC(2) required ticket was not affixed.3. Being aggrieved by the two assessm...
Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram S/O Late Kalika Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4163; [2008(116)FLR57]
V.M. Sahai and Bharati Sapru, JJ.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether the first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is mandatory or directory; whether the |exercise of discretion to suspend a government servant under Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999,, without adverting to the first proviso to Rule 4(1) is legal and in accordance with law2. The petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Lecturer (Sanskrit), He was promoted as Reader on 17.1.1996. In June 2000 he was promoted as a regular Principal and he joined at Government Degree College, Jalaun. On 10.9.2001 he was transferred as Principal to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad. The petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Sant Ravidas Nagar. The new Principal Dr. Ran Vijay Singh who joined after the transfer of the petitioner made a complaint to the D...
Manju Tomar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3300
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.12.2002 passed by Additional District Magistrate (F and R) Agra in Case No. 149 of 2002 Amir Bux v. Manju Tomar, under Stamp Act. Sale deed dated 5.10.2001 was impounded. Through the said order it was determined that through the sale deed an area of 1 bigha 1 biswa (equivalent to 2419 square meters) agricultural land was sold while in the area in, question the rate of abadi land was Rs. 1,100 per square meter. In the sale deed valuation of the property was shown to be Rs. 8 Lakhs. By the impugned order valuation was determined to be Rs. 26,60,900 and it was held that petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 1,86,100 as deficiency in stamp duty. Additional amount of Rs. 55,830 under Section 40B 40(1B)] of the Stamp Act and Rs. 1 Lakh as penalty was also required to be paid. In this manner petitioner was required to pay Rs. 3,41,930. Against the said order Revision No. 575 was filed. Co...
Satyadeo Pangoria Son of Late Sri Kishan Chand Pangoria Vs. Gopal Dhar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4157
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Gupta, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.N. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, landlord, Opp. Parties.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had not paid the rent and, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that he was in arrears of rent. However, the defendant, in order to avoid all controversy, took protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and deposited a sum of Rs. 4886.69 paise towards arrears of rent, cost, etc. on 22.09.1978, praying that since he had deposited the entire rent, etc. on the first date of hearing, the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act should be given him and he should be discharged from the liability of ejectment. The court below rejected the application and decreed the suit for ejectment and arr...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Avadh Export
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST42(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 28, 2002 relating to the assessment year 1996-97.2. The dispute relates to the levy of tax on consideration received on the sale of import licence which has been issued from the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Moradabad. The claim of the dealer was that it was neither manufacturer nor importer in respect of the said transaction and, therefore, the sale consideration was not liable to tax. The assessing authority, however, levied the tax treating the dealer as manufacturer. First appellate authority deleted the tax, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Both the authorities have held that the dealer was neither importer nor manufacturer in respect of sale of import licence.3. Heard learned Standing Counsel.4. Issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in th...
State Bank of Patiala Vs. Chopra Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC99
1. In this appeal the order dated 13th December, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow is under challenge. This order was passed in T.A. No.805/02 accepting the pleas of the present respondents for the payment and in full satisfaction under O.T.S. Scheme (3rd Scheme) issued by the R.B.I.2. Briefly stated the history giving rise to this appeal is that one suit No. 1526/ 96 was filed before the Civil Court of Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 12,16,380.25. By virtue of enactment of RDDBFI Act, 1993, the above suit was transferred to D.R.T., Allahabad where it was given a new number as T.A. No. 1045/2000. After establishment of D.R.T.at Lucknow, the above T.A. was transferred to D.R.T., Lucknow. During the proceedings the appellant Bank and the respondents compromised the case for a sum of Rs. 16.12 lacs. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 2,66,120/- with the Bank and the matter was decided on the basis of above compromise. According to the appellant Bank after compromise, the respondents c...
Modi Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Allahabad Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC113
1. By filing Appeal No. R-735/06 the order dated 5th October, 2006 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in Original Application No. 41/05 is under challenge at the instance of Modi Industries Limited and others, appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be called as defendants in this appeal for the purposes of this judgment). By order dated 5th October.2006, learned D.R.T. observed that vide order dated 2nd August, 2002 passed by B.I.F.R. the required permission under Section 22(a) of S.I.C.A. has been granted to the Bank applicant-respondent (hereinafter to be denoted as plaintiff in this appeal for this judgment). In this appeal the learned D.R.T. directed to continue the proceedings of Original Application No. 41/05 declining to stay the proceedings as prayed by the defendants, who had also prayed for dismissal of the suit for want of permission under Section 22(1) of the S.I.C.A. In Appeal No. R-769/07 feeling aggrieved by an order dated 4th December, 2006 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in T....
Ashok Kumar Gupta Son of Late Ram Swaroop Gupta Vs. State of U.P. Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR857]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Amit Shalekar for respondent No. 2.2. This petition has been filed against order of transfer. The petitioner has relied upon the guide lines issued by the State Government for consideration for the stay in the impugned order of transfer.3. It appears from the record that the petitioner has been transferred in the same office. He was earlier working as Ameen but he is appointed as clerk now and transferred by the order, which has been challenged by the petitioner is before this Court.4. Looking at the nature of the order and considering the guidelines for transfer, it appears that the petitioner is to be relieved immediately on receipt of the transfer and join his place of posting forthwith. These guidelines are not statutory in nature. Transfer is condition of service. The service of Government servants who enter in service, are transferable. Though the guidelines provide...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »