Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR223(All)
1. In the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revenue has raised the following questions said to be substantial questions of law, which arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, dated September 10, 2002.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was difference of opinion between the assessee and the Department that grant-in-aid is a capital in nature and not taxable ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. The respondent-as...
Kuldeep Kumar Tripathi Vs. Rang Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC3036
Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order passed by learned single Judge dated 2nd June, 2008, being an order passed by Vacation Judge exercising jurisdiction of Division Bench in a case which was cognizable by Division Bench, the special appeal does not lie. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Allahabad Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, 25 Muthiganj and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad and Ors. 1985 UPLBEC 1064.2. Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant, refuted the above submission and relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Smt. Meera Shankhwar and Ors. 2004 (4) AWC 3162, for the proposition that an order passed by learned single Judge during vacation exercising jurisdiction of Division Bench does not become order of Division Bench and the special appeal in respect theret...
Ram Pratap Singh Alias Shailendra Alias Shalu Vs. Vinod Kumar Shivhare ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3540
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner and Sri P.N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent No. 1 (the other proforma respondents are tenants).2. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 1 instituted suit for eviction against tenant petitioner on the ground of default in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 1997, J.S.C.C., Agra decreed the suit for eviction as well as for arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 9.1.2007. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 10 of 2007, A.D.J., Court No. 14, Agra dismissed the revision on 15.3.2008, hence this writ petition.According to the plaint allegations rate of rent was Rs. 30 per month and water tax in addition to the said amount was also payable by the tenant. However, tenant pleaded that Rs. 30 per month included tax also. The courts below found the version of the tenant in this regard to be correct.3. Rent had not been p...
Virendra Kumar Bansal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3601
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Landlords respondents have instituted suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 2005 before J.S.C.C., Agra. Initially in the plaint, only relief for eviction was sought. Thereafter, relief for recovery of unpaid rent was also sought to be added through amendment in the plaint. Said application was allowed by the trial court on 5.10.2007. Against the said judgment and order, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 74 of 2007, which was dismissed on 3.3.2008 by District Judge, Agra, hence this writ petition.3. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the original plaint plaintiff omitted to claim the relief for unpaid rent, hence by virtue of Order II, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. (op. cit.) it became barred.(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but ...
State of U.P. Vs. Panch NaraIn Vikram Shah Alias Panch NaraIn Raja Sah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4003
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the respondent hence only the arguments of learned standing Counsel for the State appellant were heard. This appeal Is directed against judgment, award and decree dated 18.11.1978 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi in L.A. Reference No. 184 of 1975. For constructing All India Radio Studio Centre in Varanasi, property in dispute which was In the form of plot No. 209 area 2.54 acres alongwith building standing on a portion thereof was acquired.2. The property in dispute was popularly known as Nepali Kothi situate in Mahmoorganj which was within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Varanasi. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published In the Gazette on 17.2.1973. Municipal number of the building was D63/6. Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of land, constructions and trees separately. Total valuation determined was Rs. 3,45,274.54.3. 15% solatium was also awarded. In ...
Smt. Manorama Devi and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC4186
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7 who were applicants for allotment before R.C. & E.O. Fresh notices sent to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have returned with the endorsement of the postman to the effect that they have left the places on which notices were sent. In their allotment applications they had given the addresses mentioned against their names in the array of the respondents hence there is no need to direct the petitioner to take steps for the third time. Moreover, it is clear from the impugned order that even before R.C. & E.O. none of the prospective allottees appeared.2. This writ petition by the landlord is directed against order dated 17.4.1996, passed in the case Nathu Singh Jatav v. Smt. Manorama Devi and Ors. by R.C. & E.O., Ghaziabad declaring accommodation in dispute to be vacant. It is ground floor portion of house No. 47 ahata of Bhoudumal, situate at G.T. Road, Ghaziabad which was initially in occupation of P.W.D. at the rent...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Sm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2013; 2009(1)AWC201; [2008(119)FLR410]; (2009)IILLJ175All
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment sand order dated 24th April, 2008 passed by the concerned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Agra. The awarded amount is Rs. 2,61,965.00. The specific point has been taken by the learned Counsel appearing in support of the Insurance Company that by virtue of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act') no matter shall be processed before or by the Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned. He also relied upon proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Workmen's Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996. The same set of provision is available there as in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. However, in ...
Roshan Lal Vs. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN341(All)
ORDERA.K. Roopanwal, J.1. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. a request has been made that the proceedings of Complaint Case Nos. 2302 and 2303 of 1987 between Union of India v. Ram Lal Roshan Lal, HUF, pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Economic Offences), Allahabad, be quashed.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that there had been a Hindu undivided family whose Karta was Ram Lal. Accused No. 2, Roshan Lal, is admittedly the son of Ram Lal. The allegation in the complaint is that the income returns on behalf of the HUF were not submitted well within the time for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act was committed. It was also the case of the complainant i.e., the Income-tax Department that Ram Lal, who was the Karta of the HUF and his son accused No. 2, Roshan Lal, were responsible for the commission of the aforesaid offence. Roshan Lal was tagged wi...
Bhargava Bhushan Press Through Its Partner and Bhargava Offset Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)AWC3525(All); [2008(118)FLR916]; (2009)IILLJ169All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of printing books. Petitioner No. 1 terminated services of 82 workmen whereas petitioner No. 2 terminated services of 16 workmen allegedly after holding disciplinary proceedings for the charges levelled against them. These workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Industrial Tribunal I, Allahabad for adjudication where it was registered as adjudication case No. 91 of 1999. Parties filed their written statements etc. and the workmen also leg their evidence. Thereafter a date was fixed for evidence by the employers.3. At that stage, the employers moved an application being Paper No. 50 -A inter alia that the issues framed by the Tribunal are jurisdictional in nature and they go to the root of the matter, as such they may be decided first as preliminary issues. The issues framed by the Tribunal were:(a). Whether the enquiry ...
Rahul Kumar Proprietor of Sheetal Hotal Vs. State of U.P. Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR796]; (2008)IIILLJ881All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Inspector appointed under the Child Labour (Prohibition of Regulation) Act 1986, inspected the establishment of the petitioner allegedly in his absence. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued on 24.4.2008 to the petitioner by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Meerut for depositing Rs. 20,000/- having allegedly contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act or filing his objection within 15 days.3. The petitioner filed his objection on 9.5.2008 disputing the age of the child labour stating that the age of alleged child labour has been incorrectly recorded by the labour inspector and he is above 14 years of age as such neither is any contravention of the provisions of the Act nor is covered under the definition of child labour as given in the Act. Thereafter the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Meerut has now pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »