Allahabad Court February 2008 Judgments
Sri Banarsi Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(All)482
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in the case of cash credits in the assessee's books in the names of close relatives, the burden of proof on the assessee under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 extended to requiring the assessee to establish the nature and source of the amount2. For ready reference Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (called the ''Act' for brevity) is reproduced below:68. where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.3. The facts are that the assessee, during the previous year relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Shri Ram Sarover Vs. Smt. Uma Devi W/O Shri Rajes ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1827
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. The elections to the post of Pradhan of village Medara, Post Karchhana, District Allahabad, were notified in the year 2005 and held on 20.8.2005. In the counting of votes among the three contestants on 29.5.2005, that both Smt. Shanti Devi-the petitioner and Smt. Uma Devi-respondent No. 1, secured 237 votes each and that Smt. Rajwanti Devi-respondent No. 2 polled 235 votes. 35 votes were found to be invalid. In a lottery held in accordance with the Rules between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 securing equal number of votes. Smt. Uma Devi-respondent No. 1 was the draw and was declared elected.2. The petitioner preferred an election petition under Section 12C(b) of UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (in short the Act). The written statement was filed on 7.2.2006. The proceedings were delayed on which the petitioner filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued by this Court to decide the election petition within a period of one year.3. The Sub Divisional Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchhi Lal S/O Param Sukh (Since Deceased), Vs. Smt. Bhagwan Dei Wife ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1910
Shiv Charan, J.1. The present second appeal has been instituted against the judgement and decree dated 5.2.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge, Khurja District Buland Shahar in Civil Appeal No. 10/84 Smt. Bhagwan Dei and Ors. v. Kanchhi Lal and Ors. By the impugned judgement and decree learned Addl. District Judge, Khurja allowed the appeal of the appellants and set asided the judgement and decree of the trial court.2. From perusal of the judgement of the court's below it is evident that Kanchhi Lal and after his death his sons instituted and maintained original suit No. 76 of 1980 in the court of Civil Judge(JD) Khurja Bulandshahar for cancellation of the will dated 27.12.76 executed by Godha in favour of Bhagwan Dei and others of his 1/2 share in plot No. 805 measuring three bighas one biswa and 9 dhoor situate at village Kamauna Pargana Pahasu District Bulandshahar. Prayer was also made for permanent prohibitory injunction not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. It has...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Ram and Sons Pvt. Ltd., a Company Duly Incorporated Under the Prov ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2053
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company with its registered office at 56 and B-33 Site No. IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad District Ghaziabad. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale business of production of milk products including 'Desi Ghee' in the name and style of 'Paras' in the market area of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti at Ghaziabad (KUMS, Ghaziabad). The petitioner also sells its products through consignee agents. A list of 15 consignee agents with their offices in the States of West Bengal; Gujarat; Goa; Orissa; Maharashtra; Rajasthan; and New Delhi, is enclosed with the writ petition. These consignee agents provide services namely uploading of goods from the truck, storage in the depots of the petitioner, despatch by trucks to redistribution stockists as per sale order, raise sale invoices on behalf of the petitioner-company in the name of re-distribution stockists and collect payments. The dispute in the present case is limited to the imposition of th...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Nath Tiwari Son of Sri Hari Krishna Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2865
Anjani Kumar and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.1. In abovenoted writ petitions common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, they are decided together by common judgment. The facts of the Writ Petition No. 3046 of 2007 would also include the facts of other two connected writ petitions and it will be leading case.2. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought relief of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 7.12.2006 contained in Annexure-12 of the writ petition and notification dated 27.8.2005 contained in Annexure-11 of the writ petition and advertisement No. A-6/E-1/2006 Employment News 7-13 October. 2006 (Annexure-6) and order dated 2.8.2007 contained in Annexure-13-F to the writ petition, the resolution of Full Court dated 30.4.2005 and 20.8.2005 by summoning the record. A relief in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for declaring the Rule 4 (m) of U.P. Judicial Service Rules 2001 as ultravires the Constitution of India so far as it includes the phrase 'in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2555
ORDERVijay Kumar Verma, J.1. Heard Sri Vinod Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.2. Instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order dated 1-9- 2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad in criminal complaint case No. 2702 of 2004 (State v. Rajeshwar Prasad and Ors.), whereby the accused-revisionists have been summoned to face the trial. Order dated 6-1-2006 issuing bailable warrant has also been challenged.3. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. 2004 (50) ACC 924 : AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2005 (51) ACC 684 : AIR 2004 SC 4711, revision against summoning order is not maintainable, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the only remedy available to the accused against summoning order is to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Khandelwal Vs. Dr. Jagdish Chand (D.) by L.Rs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC2088
Shiv Charan, J.1. The instant second appeal has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 9. Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 174 of 1994, Dr. Jagdish Chand and Ors. v. Roshan Lal Khandelwal. By the impugned judgment and decree the appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and the Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.7.1994 passed in O.S. No. 247 of 1987, Dr. Jagdish Chand v. Roshan Lal Khandelwal, were set aside. And the suit was decreed for ejectment of the respondent from the property in dispute. And decree was also passed for recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation.2. The perusal of the judgment and decree of the courts below shows that the respondent Dr. Jagdish Chand instituted O.S. No. 247 of 1987 for ejectment of the defendant/appellant from the property in dispute fully described at the foot of the plaint. It has been alleged in the plaint that the defendant/re...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Mathur S/O Sri Raghu Nath Mathur, Assistant Manager, Union Bank o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR402]
Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. The orders impugned in this writ petition are dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Lucknow, in his capacity as disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was an Ex-Air Force personnel and selected in the service of Union Bank of India in the year 1995. While working as Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Azamgarh, he was served with a charge sheet dated 27.10.2004 containing certain allegations constituting misconduct during the period he worked as Branch Manager, Nuruddinpur Branch, District Azamgarh. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Union Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC244
Saroj Bala, J.1. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.3.2001 and the further proceedings of complaint case No. 17 of 2001, Anil Kumar v. Dinesh Singh, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Sonbhadra.2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are:A criminal complaint (case No. 533 of 2000) was instituted on 5.7.2000 by the opposite party No. 2 with the allegations that sister of opposite party No. 2 was married to Dinesh Singh (applicant No. 1) in March 1995 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was alleged that dowry and gifts were given by the father of the opposite party No. 2 at the time of marriage according to his financial capacity. A week after the marriage sister of opposite party No. 2 was harassed by the applicants for bringing insufficient dowry and was turned out of the marital home. The opposite party No. 2 along with his father went to her marital home to reason ...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Narayan Jaiswal Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act) Court No. 5 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008All163
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri R. S. Misra and Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioner-landlord and Shri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amitabh Agarwal for the respondent-tenant.2. Shri Deo Narayan Jaiswal-the landlord of the shop in dispute at Malviya Road, Deoria, filed a Suit No. 7 of 1988 for ejectment & arrears of rent from 1-2-1986 to 20-6-1988, with interest of Rs. 10,868.25; water tax of Rs. 1687.32 and house lax of Rs. 137.50 per month for use and occupation upto 21-6-1988, and Rs. 375/- per month as mesne profits w.e.f. 21-6-1988. It was alleged that the shop was newly constructed in 1979, and thus the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, (In short, the Act) are not attracted. The defendant is a tenant @ Rs. 375/- per month. He carries on the business of selling medicines in the shop. The tenant did not pay the rent, inspite of demand since February 1986; made considerable damage to the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »