Allahabad Court December 2009 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.
U.P. Cement Vetanbhogi Sahkari RIn Samiti Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Reported in: [2010]97SCL196(All)
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.H. Khan for the appellant and Shri Ashok Mehta for the respondents.2. This Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26-5-2009 deciding the Application for Correction in an earlier order dated 27-4-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Company Appeal/Objection No. 85/2007 in Company Application No. 4/97. The application has been rejected by a learned Single Judge vide its order dated 26-5-2009, The order dated 27-4-2007 was passed by learned Single Judge under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'Rules 1959'). In the matter of the report of the Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh adjudicating on the 'proof of debts' and proposing to distribute the sale proceeds of the assets of the UP State Cement Corporation Limited (in liquidation) wound up...
Smt. Neeru Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN198(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. All the above writ petitions were heard together and, as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 1231 of 2008 was considered as a lead case and the arguments were advanced with reference to the facts of the said case. Therefore, the facts from the said writ petition are being taken into consideration.2. Challenge in this petition is the notice dated 14-5-2008 and the order dated 22-5-2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Agra. The impugned notice dated 14-5-2008 has been issued under Section 142(1) read with Sections 153A and 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act 1961, for the purposes of assessment under Section 153A for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The background facts of the case, which led the issuance of the said notice, may be stated in brief.3. On 23-7-2004, a search was conducted by the Income-tax Department at the residential and busines...
injecto Plast Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN174(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 25-2-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and Designated Authority, under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as KVSS) whereby a sum of Rs. 13,75,133/- has been determined as amount payable at the rate of 35% by the petitioner in view of declaration filed by it under KVSS. The said order has been passed under Section 90(1) of KVSS.2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass Raising a short controversy as to whether the amount deposited by the petitioner before the date of declaration in pursuance of the assessment order, which is subject matter of appeal, is liable to be adjusted towards the tax due first or towards the accrued interest, the present petition has been filed.3. The petitioner was a partnership firm till 30-9-1996 and it was converted into a joint stock company under part IX of the Companies Act w.e.f. 1-10-1996 and was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act...
Smt. Kanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC401
1. This appeal has been made on behalf of the claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of the award of Rs. 51,500/- on the death of minor child aged about 10 years. The judgment has been delivered by the Tribunal on 4.3.2009. We find that the ratio of the judgment of this Bench reported in 2007 (4) TAC 388(All.), where all the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court have been categorically considered, which is as follows:2. Therefore, it is crystal clear that none of the judgments proceeded on any uniform trend nor it can be. It has to be based on facts and circumstances of each case. Against this background, we have to ascertain what is the ratio decidendi available on the basis of the discussion from the aforesaid judgments. The ratio decidendi is that in arriving at 'just' compensation the Court cannot proceed by adopting a straight-jacket formula. It has to vary from case to case. The other ratio decidendi is that in case of death of minor children, there is no sco...
Smt. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC194
ORDERAmreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.1. The petitioner claims that she was selectd and appointed as Shiksha Mitra against the post which had fallen vacant on account of the absence of Smt. Gyanti Devi, respondent No. 6. The petitioner contends that since Smt. Gyanti Devi was absent for more than a year, the Village Education Committee had passed a resolution in her favour. A letter of appointment was issued on 29.9.2007. After having been appointed the petitioner claims that she was performing her duties and renewal of her appointment was also resolved by the Committee on 10.5.2008.2. It is urged that in these circumstances there was no occasion to allow respondent No. 6 to come back and rejoin her post after such a long absence. The claim of respondent No. 6 was rejected by the Basic Education Officer on 22nd July, 2008 (a copy of the said order is Annexure-13 to the writ petition).3. It appears that the matter was sought to be reviewed at the instance of respondent No. 6 and the Basic Educa...
Ramdhani Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC1
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.1. In this case on 1.12.2009, an order was passed, which is quoted below:The facts of this case indicate a horrible state of affairs. A pond comprised in plot Nos. 477 and 1174/93 was put to auction on 6.6.2006. In the bid sheet which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition total area of the pond is mentioned in bigha, biswa and biswancies as 6-3-18. It appears that bid of one Jitan Bind was highest, i.e., Rs. 1,25,000 per year however, he did not deposit the amount within time. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector, Saidpur waited for 2 and half years and on 2.1.2009 issued a letter to the petitioner who was one of the four bidders in the auction held on 6.6.2006. In the letter it was mentioned that petitioner's bid was of Rs. 19,000 which was minimum however as the other three bidders had refused to take the lease hence it was offered to him and he was required to deposit the amount (Rs. 19,000) by 19.1.2009. Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 19,000...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN460(All)
ORDER1. All the appeals have been filed by the department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against the consolidated judgment and order dated 28-2-2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow.2. The brief facts of the case are that Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitis i.e., assessees were created by a Notification in exercise of power under Section 12 of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 with the object to regulate the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce and also to develop the facilities for the farmers, so that the farmers can get best price of their produce without middlemen. It was provided by the said Act that in every market area, there shall be a committee to be called 'Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti' of that area. Section 13 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 provides for the constitution of the committee. The committee was authorised to charge the fee as 'Mandi Shulk' and also other charges for providing the warehousing facilities. Under...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Jai Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC387
Shishir Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-15 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4.2. Petitioner who is tenant of the shop in dispute since long and is carrying on his business and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute.3. It appears that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed against petitioner on 8.1.1993. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1993. It has been stated that no notices were ever served upon petitioner. However, tenant came to know regarding the aforesaid proceedings and put his appearance on 13.5.1993. Then an application was filed on behalf of respondent-landlord to withdraw the case. The aforesaid application was allowed on 20.5.1993. Another application was filed on 29.5.1993 and co-landlord Ram Prakash was made respondent No. 1 while petitioner was made respondent No. 2. Notices by registered post were issued on 29.5.1993...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›