Allahabad Court July 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.
Smt. Ruchi Veera Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3399
Janardan Sahai and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. The petitioner was the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Bijnor. At the instance of the members of the Zila Panchayat the Collector, Bijnor convened a meeting fixing 29.5.2008 for consideration of a no-confidence motion against her. It is alleged that out of a total of 48 members of the Zila Panchayat 34 members attended the meeting. The motion was carried through by -32 persons voting in favour of the motion one against the motion and there was one invalid vote.2. After the amendment of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam in 2004 a motion of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha can be carried through by half the total numbers of the members of the Zila Panchayat. Before the amendment it could only be passed by 2/3 of the total number of the members of the Zila Panchayat. The petitioner in whose case the motion was passed after the amendment of Section 28, challenged the amendment in Writ Petition No. 4549 of 2008 in th...
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3441
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Supplementary-affidavit filed today, is taken on record.2. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari and Sri O.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Zafar Naiyer, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, assisted by Sri Sachin Upadhyay, advocate.3. Notice has been served on Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited through the official liquidator, notice has been accepted by Sri J. Nagar for respondent No. 6, notice on behalf of respondent No. 7 has been accepted by Sri P.N. Tripathi and notice on behalf of respondent No. 8 has been accepted by Sri Jayant Banerji.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents as the learned Counsels for the parties, after the submissions were advanced, have consented to the final disposal of the writ petition for being remanded back to the Tribunal for passing of the orders in the terms as ...
Anis E. John Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3481
B.K. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be the duly appointed Principal of St. Andrew's Intermediate College, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to' as Institution) for quashing the orders dated 28.2.2007 and 1.3.2007 Annexures-I and II passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively.3. By the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 Sri R. B. Singh, respondent No. 5 has been permitted to function as officiating Principal of the Institution and by the order dated 1.3.2007, passed by the respondent No.' 3, the signatures of the respondent No. 5 have been attested as officiating Principal of the Institution.4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 regarding the ...
Abhimanyu Chaubey Vs. Insurance Ombudsman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: AIR2009All171
Dilip Gupta, J.1. The grant of partial relief by the Insurance Ombudsman under the award dated 13th April, 2005 has led to the filing of this petition by the nominee under the life insurance policy of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Chaubey for a direction upon the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') to pay the entire amount due under the policy as against the award of ex gratia amount of the basic sum assured.2. The deceased Rajesh Kumar Chaubey had submitted a proposal dated 14th May, 1999 to the Corporation for the assured sum of Rs. 1 lac along with a cheque of Rs. 10,507/- towards the first premium. In the said proposal form, apart from furnishing the required information, he also gave a declaration that if after the date of Submission of the proposal but before the issuance of the First Premium Receipt, there is any change in his general health, he shall forthwith intimate the Corporation about it in writing to enable it to reconsider the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Iqbal Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR142(All)
1. In the present income-tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax has raised the following questions said to be substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 15, 2003. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1992-93:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the Department's appeal by following the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003] 262 ITR 407 despite the fact that the facts and circumstances of that case were different to those of the assessee's case?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the report of the Valuation Officer cannot be utilized as an evidence or expert opinion of a technical expert by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment in view of the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the...
Subhash Malik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN88(All)
1. This appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi was correct to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by refusing to condone the delay of 279 days?2. Whether the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is sustainable in view of the decisions of Collector, Land Acquisitions. Katiji (Mst.) : [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). Auto Centre v. State of U.P. : [2005] 278 ITR 291 (All.) and IT Appeal No. 25 of 2004, Bharat Auto Centre Lanka Ghazipur v. CIT dated 8-7-2005.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this appeal is being heard and finally decided.3. Present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 8-7-2005 for the assessment year 2001 -02, whereby the Tribunal has ...
Amber Kumar JaIn (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3495
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Proceedings for determination and declaration of surplus land with the petitioner under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated. Prescribed Authority, Jansath, district Muzaffarnagar through order dated 20.5.1976 held that petitioner possessed about 23 bighas land as surplus land. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 780 of 1976. One more appeal was also filed against the same judgment number of which appears to be 81 of 1976. Ill Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar allowed both the appeals through judgment and order dated 27.9.1976 and held that petitioner did not possess any surplus land. It appears that no writ petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.1976.3. However thereafter fresh proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. At the second stage, Prescribed Authority through order dated 29.4.1988 declared 22 bighas land as surplus...
Mohabbey Ali Vs. Tej Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3435
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Chaubey and Sri Iqbal Ahmad advocates for the contesting respondents.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged which are on record.3. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2006, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, J.P. Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2004, Mohabbey Ali v. Tej Bahadur, confirming the judgment and order dated 9.8.2004, passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 6 of 1996.4. The respondents-landlord preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against Mohabbey Ali for release of a shop on the ground that the accommodation in question situated in Mohalla Mandi Chowk, Amroha, J.P. Nagar is required for setting up his divorced daughter and late Chunni Lal who was the joint owner of the shop and inherited the property afte...
Abodh NaraIn Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3617
Shishir Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents and learned standing counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.12.1991 (Annexure-9 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. Further, order dated 5.8.1987 (Annexure-4 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 20.10.1986 (Annexure-1 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3.3. It appears that petitioner is a sole tenant of original plot No. 88 area 0.38 acre situated on G.T. Road and adjoining to U.P. Tourist Bunglow. The plot is surrounded by pucca boundary wall. During consolidation operation, petitioner was assured that he will be given the said plot. An objection to that effect was filed by petitioner under Section 20 of the Act, but the said objection was rejected vide its order dated 20.10.1986 by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Then petitioner filed an appeal. Appellate court though has held that original holding of petitione...
Dheeraj and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3825
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioner and Mahendra jointly tried to usurp the property of Gaon Sabha. Learned S.O.C. and D.D.C. rightly thwarted the attempt. D.D.C. Bulandshahr Camp, Gautam Budh Nagar through order dated 26.2.2009 dismissed the Revision No. 42/80 of 2008-09, Dheeraj Singh v. State of U.P.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Mahendra had not challenged the compromise in between petitioner and him and standing Counsel had no right to file appeal against order dated 5.12.2001 passed by CO. settling Gaon Sabha land with the petitioner on the ground that Mahendra had agreed for the same (earlier A.C.O. through order dated 9.1.1986 had settled Gaon Sabha land with Mahendra). It has also been argued that appeal was belated (filed in 2006) and no delay condonation application had been filed. Under Section 11C of U.P.C.H. Act it is provided that if C.O., S.O.C or D.D.C. while hearing a case comes to the conclusion that any land vests in the State Government or Gaon S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »