Allahabad Court February 2009 Judgments
Government Approved Tourist Guide Association and Approved Guide Assoc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC2050
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These writ petitions raise similar issues of facts and law and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The first two writ petitions contain similar pleadings and reliefs whereas the relief claimed in third writ petition is dependent on outcome of decision in first two writ petitions. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are: Writ Petition No. 68499 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as first writ petition). The first writ petition has been filed by a registered association of tourist guides registered at Varanasi, the members of which have been recognised as Regional Guides by Department of Tourism, Government of India and are known as Regional Guides. They claimed to have been issued identity cards by the Department of Tourism, Government of India for guiding the tourists at ancient monuments, i.e., protected monuments. The petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 21st November, 2006 issued by the Directorate of Tourism, State of Uttar...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Anjali Swaroop, Vs. Noida and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1744
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This bunch of writ petitions raising similar questions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. All these writ petitions have been filed on similar facts and grounds. It is sufficient to refer to the pleadings of writ petitions No. 230 of 2009, 266 of 2009 and 22 of 2009 for deciding all these writ petitions. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding these writ petitions are; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Noida') issued a residential plot scheme 2004 (1) inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in different sectors including Sector No. 44. The petitioners submitted applications in response to the notice by depositing the registration amount. The Noida authority have conducted draw of lots on 2.7.2005 in which several applicants were selected for allotment. By a subsequent order dated 4.7.2005, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Deepak Agrawal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-i a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(All)625; [2009]183TAXMAN199(All)
Dilip Gupta, J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the notice dated 13th March, 2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Range-I) Allahabad under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as also the order dated 12th November, 2008 by which the objections filed by the petitioner to challenge the reasons recorded in the aforesaid notice were rejected. 2. The petitioner, who is a medical practitioner, filed his return under Section 139 of the Act on 27th August, 2001 for the Assessment Year 2001-02 disclosing income of Rs. 2,48,640/-. Along with the return, a cash flow chart was appended which mentioned about the gift of Rs. 3,00,000/- given by Madhu Agrawal. 3. However, on 23rd November, 2001 search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on the premises of the petitioner and the Block Assessment order under Section 158-BC of the Act for the block period 1st April, 1995 to 23rd November, 2001 was compl...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1961; (2009)IIILLJ763All
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri S.S. Sharma, the learned standing counsel for, the petitioner and Sri Dhananjai Kumar Rai, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15.2.2005 and 27.6.2005 passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The facts as culled out from the record is. that respondent No. 1 was appointed as a work charged employee in the petitioner's establishment on 1.9.1968 and his services was regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1993. The petitioner retired from the service on 31.8.2001 and at that time, an amount of Rs. 17,160 was paid as gratuity, taking the period of service from 31.12.1993 till the date of his retirement dated 31.8.2001. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the period from 1968 to 1993, i.e., the period when he had started working as a work charged employee, filed an application, for computation of the gratuity, before the controlling authority under the Payment ...
Tag this Judgment!irshad HusaIn Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All125; 2009(2)AWC1700
Amitava Lala, J.1. Here the dispute is not with regard to recovery of commercial loan amount by the Bank as land revenue. The dispute is with regard to power of jurisdiction of the authority under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as Act, 2002) to give assistance to the secured, creditor, i.e., the Bank herein is taking possession of the property in question. The petitioner wanted to make out the case that the order dated 27.1.2009, which has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (F. & R.), Moradabad in Case No. 42/78 of 2008, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Wemesa Fibres (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors.) is not sustainable in view of the fact that such Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (F. & R.), Moradabad has no power or authority to pass such order as per Section 14 of the Act, 2002. Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is quoted hereunder:14. Chief M...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rugada Devi Vs. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1909
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner, was elected as Pradhan in an election held in the year 2005. The respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the defeated candidates in the election. The respondent No. 4 Kawalpatia had lost the election by margin of 5 votes. She, thus, filed an election petition praying for recounting of votes, which was registered as Election Petition No. 6 of 2005. By an order dated 18.8.2007, the election petition of the respondent No. 4 was dismissed on merits. Challenging the said order, the respondent No. 4-election petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, which has been allowed by order dated 27.1.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.2. On 6.2.2009, an interim order was granted by this Court staying the operation of the order passed in revision and as such, the order, directing the re-counting of votes has not been implemented.3. I have heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijendra Nath Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ1921
R.K. Agrawal and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22nd January, 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application, namely, Original Application No. 1217 of 2007 filed by the petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner at present is holding the post of Scientist S.D. in National Test House.3. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23125 of 2004 before this Court in regard to controversy regarding his promotion to the post of Scientist S.D. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Scientist S.D. on 26.10.2005 with effect from the date of actually assuming charge, and not from the actual date of eligibility.4. Further, while the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner was transferred from Ghaziabad to Chennai by the order dated 20.2.2006, ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2201
S.R. Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and consequential order dated 29.6.2006 whereby pay fixation of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st July, 1986 has been re-fixed on the ground that it was earlier wrongly fixed and direction has also been issued to recover the amount allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner on account of aforesaid wrong fixation.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on his part. The mistake, if any, was committed by the respondents on their own and in these circumstances after such a long time and that too after his retirement no recovery of the amount already paid, can be made, though the rectification in respect to fixation can always be done. He has placed reliance on the decision in B.N. Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1979 ALJ 1184 and Shyam Babu Verma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : 1994 (2) SCC 521.3. Respondents have fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prakash Shukla Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2132
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Sugar Corporation.2. After conducting departmental inquiry the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 2.9.1999 passed by the Managing Director, U. P. Sugar Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as disciplinary authority) and the appeal of the petitioner against the said dismissal order has been rejected by the order dated 11.4.2000. Aggrieved thereto the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under:The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is incorporated under the provisions of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and is registered as the Government Company under the Companies Act, 1956. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Manna Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2659
ORDERNarayan Shukla, J.1. Heard Mr. Salil K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., and Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant.2. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 4th of July, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2004, arising out of case Crime No. 259 of 2002, under Sections 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Kaiserbagh, district Lucknow, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, prima facie, being satisfied with the material available on record has proceeded to frame the charge against the revisionist.3. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has challenged the order inter alia on the ground that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge, prima facie, has shown his satisfaction for framing of charges, but he has not discussed the material available before him for framing of charges.4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »