Allahabad Court January 2008 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.
Agrawal Duplex Board Mills Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST121(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. Heard Sri R.D. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel representing the opposite party.2. The dealer has preferred this revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut-1st Bench, Camp, Muzafarnagar, dated August 20, 2003. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1997-98.3. The dealer had disclosed total sales at Rs. 3,01,35,916. Out of which the sales within the State which were taxable were quantified at Rs. 27,13,804 whereas taxable central sales were quantified at Rs. 6,41,451. The assessing officer based upon material on record specially the evidence collected during the survey, dated March 10, 1998 came to the conclusion that the account books had not been properly maintained and were liable to be rejected. After rejection of the account books it estimated the total turnover at Rs. 3,83,54,324 out of ...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)21VST371(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. Despite the fact that the affidavit of service has been filed by the applicant no one has put in appearance on behalf of the dealer-opposite party.2. The issues and questions of law raised in these three revisions being common they have been taken together and are being decided by this common order.3. These three revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 relating to the assessment year 1999-2000, with regard to three different dealers. The questions of law sought to be raised in these revisions are:(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the sale rate of sand at Rs. 30 without any basis on record?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in estimating the taxable turnover below the royalty paid by the dealer inasmuch as the royalty paid by the dealer forms part of ...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. K.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR444]
U.K. Dhaon and Devi Prasad Singh, JJ.1. Heard Sri S.C. Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K, Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite pasty No. 1,2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.2.3.2007 passed by I he Stale Public Service Tribunal, Lueknow by which the claim petition pillared by opposite party No. 1 was allowed and the order dated 19.7.2007 by which the review petition preferred by the-petitioner was dismissed, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appointed opposite party No. 1 as District Supply Officer on the basis of the Combined Stale Service Competitive Examination in the year 1968. The petitioner (sic-opposite party No. 3) was initially appointed on 12 9.1969 and later on he was confirmed w.e.f. 12.9.1974 by the order dated 15.1.1980. The opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the pos...
Radhey Shyam Yadav Son of Sri Nand Lal Singh, Principal, Swami Vivekan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)AWC797; [2008(116)FLR991]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri J.N. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management, respondent No. 3. Since no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the initial stage itself.2. The petitioner is functioning as the Principal of the Institution, which is recognised under the Intermediate Education Act. The Committee of Management, by an order dated 13.11.2007, has issued an order suspending the petitioner on a variety of charges. The suspension order along with other documents was forwarded by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval, as required under Section 16-G(7) of the Act. The District Inspector of Schools issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause and submit a reply. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges and prayed for the revocation of the suspension ...
Ram Rakhan Singh Son of Late Shri Baij Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR211]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the Trade Tax Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and actually retired on 31-01-01. On 18th January, 2002, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet bearing the date as 29th December, 2001. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner made an application dated 20th September, 2002 stating therein that the enquiry proceedings were liable to be revoked.2. However, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner were continued and on 15/16th January, 2003 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with an enquiry report dated 8th March, 2002. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18th January, 2003 to the second show cause notice and vide letter dated 5th April, 2003, he has requested for revocation of the entire proceedings.3. By means of the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2005 t...
Jitendra Pratap Singh Son of Udai Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR109]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri K.S. Rathor and learned Standing Counsel Shri P.P. Srivastava for the State.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.3.1988 passed by the respondent No. 5 Senior Superintendent of Police, by which the petitioner was removed from his temporary service as a Police Constable. The second prayer of the petitioner is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service and grant him all benefits in accordance with law.2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 16.10.86 for the recruitment of Police Constables. At the bottom of the advertisement, a note was appended that the recruitment, which was being made to this advertisement be of a temporary nature and as and when vacancies occur, those persons who are selected would be adjusted. Other conditions imposed are passing of the fitness test a...
Preetam Prasad Son of Shrinarayan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR91]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Digvijay Tiwari learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.K. Chandra learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri R.K. Srivastava learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Sewak w.e.f. 5.11.1974 on a temporary basis in a fixed pay in Junior High School Dhadha, Vikas Kshetra Hata, district Deoria and since then, had been continuously working without any break in service. By an order dated 19.9.1997, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari directed the payment of regular pay to the petitioner (as is clear from the endorsement made in the service book of the petitioner). The petitioner retired on 21.3.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation after serving for more than 31 years. The petitioner applied for the; post retirement benefits, i.e. pension, gratuity, etc. and since his grievance was riot) being attended to, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 8915 of 2007, which was disposed...
Shri Keshav Deo Sharma S/o Beni Ram, U.P. State Roadway Transport Corp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR12]
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order B impugned dated 17.10.2007 passed by Chief General Manager (Personnel), U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Ltd., (in short UPSRTC) Annexure 31 to the writ petition and consequential order dated 18.10.2007 I 1 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Hathras Depot, Hathras, Annexure-32 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Corporation and all the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by UPSRTC Regulations 1981. The petitioner alleged to be President of the Union submitted that due to the malafide inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been transferred from one district to another. The petitioner alleges certain malafides against respondent No. 2 who is working as Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Hathras Depot, Hattiras. It ha further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Majority of the employees of Hathras D...
Sheo Kumar Son of Chhitani Alias Chhitwa Vs. State of U.P. Through Col ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1117
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.1989 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 and to quash the auction dated 16.1.1988 made by respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere the peaceful possession over the petitioners land in dispute.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from Allahabad Bank in the year 1981. Petitioner deposited a Sum of Rs. 4,400/- on 17.6.1987 towards the loan. On account of drought and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the remaining mount so the bank has directed the Tehsil authorities for recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner was not served any kind of notice or citation by the respondents and on 15.1.1988 the Amin (Collection) came to the petitioner and has received a sum of Rs. 2,200/- and a receipt to that effect w...
Avinash Chandra and ors. Vs. Viith Additional District Judge/Appellate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1287
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties in the first writ petition and only the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the second writ petition as tenants respondents of the said writ petition did not appear in spite of sufficient service.2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by same landlords against different tenants. Properties in dispute in both the writ petitions are different but adjacent to each other. The tenant in the writ petition of 1998 was Om Prakash respondent No. 3, who died during pendency of proceedings before the courts below and was substituted by his legal representatives, who are contesting respondents. Shop in dispute in the said writ petition is shop No. 174, which consists of four portions total frontage is 20 feet and 7 inches and depth is about 40 feet. Exactly an equal area is in possession of the tenants respondents in the 2003 writ petition (original tenant was deceased Panna Lal), which is numbered as Shops No. 171 and 173 and both t...