Allahabad Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gulam Mohammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR168(All)
1. The assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91, was originally framed on January 4, 1991. On the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer in respect of investment made in the construction of building by the respondent-assessee at building material market in Maida Bazar, Kanpur, proceeding under Section 147/148 of the Act, was initiated and vide his order dated December 16, 1997, the Assessing Officer added the difference in the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer and the investment shown by the assessee as income from other sources which order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, vide order dated November 28, 2003, had quashed the reassessment order.2. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing Counsel for the Revenue and learned Counsel appearing for respondent assessee.3. Relying on the provision...
Jagat NaraIn Lal Vs. Ram Sakal (D) by L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC241
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, who is said to be an adopted son of late Baijnath Lal, claimed himself to be the sole tenure-holder of the entire land in dispute, which was rejected by all the three consolidation courts hence the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of the orders passed by the consolidation courts.3. According to the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer declared Ram Sakal, respondent No. 1 to be sirdar of khata No. 34, Smt. Phuleshara, respondent No. 2 as sirdar of khata No. 33. The petitioner was declared as bhumidhar of khata No. 28 except plot No. 99/2. The Settlement Officer, confirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer with regard to khata Nos. 34 and 35. However, he reversed the findings of the Consolidation Officer with regard to plot Nos. 39/2, 77 and 119/2 and declared Ram Sakal and Smt. Phuleshara to be sirdars of the aforesaid plots. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also d...
Sanskritik Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC239
ORDERA.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ajit Singh for the respondent No. 4.2. The challenge is to the order dated 10.4,95 as upheld by the learned Commissioner in revision vide order dated 23.11.05 whereby the entries allegedly in favour of the petitioner have been expunged.3. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner society is in possession of plot Nos. 268M, 270M and 281M total area of 20 bighas and 3 biswas situate in Mauja Bingawan Pargana/Tahsil, Kanpur, district Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of the tenure holder since 1359 fasli and the said tenure holder executed a sale deed in favour of one Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj. The said Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner society in 1966 whereafter the petitioner society is in continuous posses...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC521
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, counsel for contesting respondents.2. Petitioner preferred a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of an area shown in the application as A, B, C, and D measuring 18 x 18 feet situated in mohalla Parhpur, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as disputed accommodation). The need of petitioner set up in the release application was for establishing a chamber for his son. This fact was supported by an affidavit by son himself to substantiate that he requires a separate independent chamber for conducting his professional work. The disputed accommodation was initially let out to one Lalta Prasad Shukla at rent of Rs. 150 per month, which was increased by 10% every five years.3. The original tenant expired in December, 1996. Subsequent to his death, Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla and Shri Shyam Karan a...
ishwar Dev and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC243
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.6.2009, passed by Consolidation Officer, Robertsganj district Sonebhadra in Case Nos. 18 to 54 under Section 42A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Through the impugned order pattas granted to the petitioners and others have been held to be fictitious and forged. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed copies of alleged pattas alongwith rejoinder-affidavit and original pattas have been shown to the court. Pattas appear to have been granted in the year 1971-72. Copy of the notices issued to the petitioners is Annexure-2 to the writ petition which was issued on 24.6.2009 fixing 29.6.2009 as the date (the case itself was decided on 29.6.2009). It was extremely insufficient notice. Atleast two weeks notice should have been given to the affected persons. Even after issuing notices, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that hearing is not necessary.2. Patta if in-fact granted cann...
Ram Asrey Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC235
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. List of hearing cases has been revised. The learned Counsels for the private respondents are not present.2. The petitioner is a landless labourer and took a loan from the Bank for purchasing a pumping set. The petitioner committed a default and, accordingly, his land was attached and sold by public auction, in which, the bid of the respondent No. 5 was found to be the highest. The auction sale was consequently confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banda, the respondent No. 2, by its order dated 31st May, 1988. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the confirmation of the sale, has filed the present writ petition.3. Amongst the other grounds raised by the petitioner, this Court is confining the submission to only one ground, namely, that the sale could not have been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and could only have been confirmed by the Collector, as con...
Ram Sahodar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC235a
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The proceedings arise out of orders passed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 3.7.1992, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the State, questioning the order of the prescribed authority dated 25.10.1991, has been allowed and the land to the tune of 9.84 acres in the irrigated sense has been declared as surplus in the hands of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is erroneous, inasmuch as, the order dated 25th May, 1978, passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby only an area of 1.24 acres has been declared surplus, had become final and there was no further land available so as to reopen the entire proceedings on the principles ...
Constable 3461 Baliram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC230
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Since similar and common controversy is involved in these two writ petitions, both the writ petitions are being decided by this one and common judgment.2. Heard Sarvasri G.K. Singh and V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record.3. Under challenge in these two petitions is an order of dismissal passed on 31st July, 2004 dismissing the petitioners from service and the other subsequent orders passed on 30th May, 2005 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 28.12.2005 by which the petitioner's revision was dismissed.4. It emerges from the record that the petitioners, who were working as Constables in 35 Battalion in Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as the P.A.C.), were posted on security duty of Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya, Faizabad with other P.A.C. personnel. On 9th April, 2003, they were on the duty of the Watch Towers to keep a watch on the disputed premises. One S...
Rohtash (Minor) and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC284
A.P. Sahi, J.1. Heard Shri N.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.K. Saini, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri Manoj Mishra has been served with a notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5 but no counter-affidavit has been filed nor anybody is present on behalf of the said respondent.2. With the consent of the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage.3. The dispute centers around the auction of a plot of land of Khata No. 190 bearing plot No. 474/2 area 1.024 hectares. The said auction proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against late Ilam Chand, the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of the petitioner No. 4. During the pendency of the recovery proceedings Ilam Chand died and the recovery proceeded by way of auction of said plot of land. According to the records of the Sta...
Rajan Sharma and ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC225
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners/tenant and Sri Vipin Sinha advocate for the contesting respondent/landlord.2. A release application was filed initially under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1979 for release of residential accommodation in possession of four different tenants Smt. Kanta Sharma, Madan Mohan Sharma (one set of tenant), Ram Deen (second set of tenant), Smt. Ram Rakhi (third set of tenant) and Smt. Dropadi, Ladla (fourth set of tenant). Four tenants filed their objections primarily regarding maintainability of single application for eviction of a number of individual tenants in occupation of independent accommodation. Besides, the bona fide need of the landlord and also the ground of accommodation being a dilapidated condition was disputed.3. The Prescribed Authority did not agree with the contentions of the landlord raised in the release application and cam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »