Allahabad Court April 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.
Govind Vanaspati (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST251(All)
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard learned senior Counsel Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey learned standing counsel for the Department.2. This revision has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal dated February 20, 2001 by which the Tribunal has rejected the case of the assessee for grant of an exemption under notification dated July 27, 1991 by which exemptions towards the tax were given to certain industries, whose date of production was falling between the dates with effect from April 1, 1990 up to March 31, 1995.3. The questions of law referred are as under:(1) Whether the applicant having established its unit in pursuance of Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991 in which the unit manufacturing vanaspati was not in the prohibited list and the same was included for the first time in annexure II of Notification dated March 31, 1995, hence the applicant was entitled for the grant of eligibility certific...
Sanjay Parikh and ors. Vs. Iiird Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2397
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These are landlords' writ petitions arising out of proceedings for enhancement of rent initiated by the landlords against their tenant respondent No. 3, District Commandant Home Guards Civil Lines, Moradabad. In the property in dispute office of respondent No. 3 is situated. Initially rate of rent was Rs. 321.25 per month. Total area of the property in dispute is 562.63 square metres. Application, which was filed by the landlords for enhancement of rent before R.C. & E.O., was registered as Case No. 5 of 1991, R.C. & E.O. through order dated 6.6.1994 enhanced the rent to Rs. 7,800 per month determining the total market value of the tenanted accommodation (land and building) as Rs. 9,36,320. Against the said order, both the parties filed appeals, which were numbered as R.C. Appeal Nos. 13 and 34 of 1994. Case of the landlords was that rent must be fixed at Rs. 10,936 per month and case of the tenant was that rent should not have b...
Mahmood Rais and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2498
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda dated 16.5.2008 whereby the learned Commissioner has refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioners in the proceedings of appeal pending before him under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The same is questioned on the ground that it is the statutory right of the petitioners to file an appeal and once the appeal had been admitted, then the Commissioner ought to have granted an interim order in order to protect the interest of the parties during the pendency of the appeal.2. For the purpose of consideration of grant of interim relief, the settled principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury has to be kept in mind before passing an order either refusing or granting an interim order. The purpose of an interim order is to preserve the state of affairs so as to avoid any prejudice to the parties during the pendency of ...
Savitri Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2508
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Shahid Masud, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. P. Misra, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-decree holder.2. A suit for specific performance of a contract was decreed by the trial court and the trial court directed the defendant to take the balance amount of Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff and thereafter execute the sale-deed within two months, falling which the Court would be constrained to execute the sale deed at the cost of the judgment debtor. It transpires that the Judgment debtor did not comply with his part of the condition and consequently, the decree was put into execution. Amongst various objections raised by the judgment debtor, one such objection raised was that the condition contained in the decree was not complied by the decree holder and that he had not deposited the amount of Rs. 1,000 within the stipulated period as directed by the trial court. The executing court rejected the objection and permitted the decree holder to...
Jagdish Singh Rathore Vs. Cane Commissioner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2528
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Udai Nandan holding brief on behalf of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 7.10.1998, passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.3. By means of the impugned order the following punishments has been imposed upon the petitioner:(1) Recovery of Rs. 2,04,621.85.(2) Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.(3) Censure entry.(4) Non-entitlement of full salary except of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.(5) The petitioner should not be posted in future on any post of sensitive nature.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice for the reasons : (1) no oral enquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer has submitted ex part...
Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2512
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed, Inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 20th November, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Meerut, Region, Meerut (respondent No. 2), the order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 11.3.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 3).2. It appears that the petitioner was the licensee of the Fair Price Shop in question in Village Arthala, district Ghaziabad. An enquiry/ inspection was conducted in respect of the Fair Pure Shop in question at 3.30 p.m. on 9.10.2004 in the presence of Indra Pal Singh, husband of the petitioner. As certain irregularities in regard to the distribution of kerosene oil were found, an order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was passed by the District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 3), inter alia, suspending the licence of the p...
Ragho Ram Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4134
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Late Shri Kashi Prasad filed a suit (O. S. No. 515 of 1981) against respondent Nos. 6 to 10-Santosh Kumar and others for cancellation of sale deed dated 5.10.1981. During pendency of suit Shri Kashi Prasad died on 28.7.1982. Two substitution / impleadment applications were filed one by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Thakur Prasad and Smt. Ram Sanwari and the other by the petitioner. Both the parties claimed that late Shri Kashi Prasad had executed Wills in their favour. Petitioner claimed that Kashi Prasad had executed Will in his favour on 18.7.1982. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claimed that the deceased had executed a registered Will deed dated 25.11.1981 in their favour. Trial court/Munsif, Basti through order dated 8.2.1984, decided the matter in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Kashi Prasad in the plaint had also stated that he had executed Will deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The Will deed produced by the petitioner was ...
Chhabi Lal and ors. Vs. Rajveer Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2521
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri H.M. Srivastava alongwith Sri Neeraj Srivastava learned Counsel who has put in appearance by caveat on behalf of the plaintiff respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 3/1 and 4 have been described as proforma defendant-respondents being certain purchasers of the land. Since the contesting parties have been heard, this appeal is being decided today itself on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal.2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.12.2008, passed in Civil Appeal No. 20/2008 by the Additional District Judge IV, Firozabad whereby the defendant's first appeal has been dismissed and the Judgment and decree of the trial court issuing an injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellants has been confirmed.3. Sri Arvind Srivastava learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants has assailed the ...
Hazi Naseem Ahmad Vs. R.C.E.O./A.D.M. (C.S.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4174
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 16 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The subject-matter of the dispute is one shop situate on ground floor of house No. B-16/94, Mohalla Pandey Haveli, Varanasi. Shamim Azaz, the respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application for allotment on July 19, 2006 of the said accommodation. A report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who submitted its report dated 20th of September, 2006. The respondent Nos. 3 to 8, the landlord, applied for the release of the disputed shop. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The authority concerned by the order dated 15th of March, 2007 declared the accommodation as vacant. Thereafter, an application to review and recall the said order was filed by the present petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.8.2007. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought t...
Gopal Das Gaur Vs. Smt. Suman Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AWC2384
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Pandey learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is only a formal party.2. A dispute arose between the appellant and respondent No. 1 with regard to transaction of 1,300 shares of Reliance Capital Limited which was referable to Arbitration under the bye laws of U. P. Stock Exchange Association Limited. The Arbitral Tribunal vide award dated 16.10.2006 directed the appellant to make payment of Rs. 91,220 to the respondent within three months in full and final settlement of 1,300 shares of Reliance Capital Limited which were the subject-matter of dispute. Against the said award appellant filed objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Besides, the two other objections that the award is against the public policy of India and that the Tribunal lacked authority, the primary objection of the appellant before the court below was that that the cla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »