Allahabad Court September 2009 Judgments

Ram Naresh and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC427

S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the written argument filed by learned Counsel for the petitioners. The dispute relates to an area of 0.20 acres of plot No. 2009 situate in Mauja Nonarwar Tola Makunahi, Deoria. After the issuance of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act starting the consolidation proceedings in the area in question and after original enquiry (partal) and after preparation of C.H. Form No. 2A which records the position at the time of initiation of consolidation proceedings, Zila Parishad constructed a road passing through several plots including plot No. 2026/2 area 0.20 acre belonging to the petitioners. The road was built before any substantial step regarding carvation of chak could be taken by the consolidation authorities. It is not clear as to why the Government did not take steps for compulsory acquisition of the land over which road was made. Petitioners filed objection at a rather belated stage before Settlement Officer Co...

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Verma (Since Deceased) ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC89

Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Chakeri, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the H.A.L.) and Sri Arvind Srivastava who is representing the respondent-applicants.2. The present first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1st December, 1992, passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 714 of 1983, Kanhaiya Lal Verma v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. This suit was partly decreed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar holding that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) were owners in possession of plot No. 207, area 9 bigha 11 biswa. plot No, 209/1, area 15 bigha 6 biswa and plot No. 230/2, 8 bigha 10 biswa. It was also held that the defendants have no title or possession over the land in dispute. While entertaining the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree, an interim order was passed by this Court on 28.1.1993 staying the operation of the ...

Gopi Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority an ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC426

ORDERTarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner purchased an agriculture land in Garh Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad, vide sale-deed dated 13.4.1994 and paid stamp duty as per the prevailing rates applicable on the agriculture land. Based on the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, on the basis of an Audit Report of the Deputy Registrar, Garh Mukteshwar, proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner to show cause as to why deficiency of stamp duty and penalty be not imposed for not paying the stamp duty as per the prevailing rates applicable for commercial purpose. The petitioner, upon receiving the notice, filed its objection and submitted that the land was agriculture in nature and that the circle rate applicable on an agriculture land was paid and that th...

Commissioner of Income Tax - I Vs. Shri Mohd. Farooq

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(All)360; [2009]317ITR305(All)

C.K. Prasad, C.J.1. As identical question of law is involved in all these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act 1961') by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extension of prescribed period of limitation and for admission of appeals after condoning the delay. When said applications for condonation of delay were placed for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench by order dated ...

Yogendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Smt. Sushma Devi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3945

Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Sri Rahul Sahai, advocate for the contesting respondents.2. The prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.1.2009, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 10, Badaun in Rent Appeal No. 24 of 2006, Yogendra Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Sushma Gupta preferred against the judgment and order in Rent Case No. 2 of 2002 dated 28.4.2006, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Badaun. An application was filed by landlady for release of the disputed shop to settle her two sons namely Mohit and Rohit in business, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The application was filed by Smt. Sushma Devi wife of Rajendra Kumar Agarwal. The petitioner filed objection to the said release application pleading that the shop in question was only source of his livelihood and he wi...

Kamla Devi Vs. Munni Devi Tripathi and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3951

Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. In the instant writ petition, the order dated 29.5.2009, releasing the house in dispute passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 38 of 2008, Kamla Devi v. Munni Devi and Anr. as well as order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate/IIIrd Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 32 of 2007, Anil Kumar v. Kamla Devi, are impugned. The disputed house No. 107/152A, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur which consists of two rooms, half courtyard and chabutara and common latrine, bath room. This has been declared vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereafter the said house stands released in favour of the landlord. The rate of rent is Rs. 18.75 per month.2. At the time when the writ petition was moved as a fresh case initially an interim order dated 13.7.2009 was passed that since the facts involved are not in dispute and, therefore, final disposal/final argument of the writ petition s...

Riz Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC31

S.U. Khan, J.1. Learned standing counsel has agreed for final disposal of the writ petition without filing counter-affidavit.2. In this writ petition on 25.8.2009 following order was passed:Through five lines order contained in Annexure-1 Consolidation Officer, Anoopsahar district Bulandshahr has cancelled the names of the petitioners which were continuing since 1992 in the khatauni, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The land in dispute is mentioned as Shreni-3 and in possession of asamies. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that several such orders have been passed by C.O., Anoopsahr, district Bulandsahr.Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel shall at once seek instructions in this regard. The Court completely fails to understand that why Revenue authorities and Consolidation authorities pass orders cancelling long standing entries without hearing the parties concerned. This is virtually massacre of Justice. When large number of people are involved notice m...

Daya Ram and anr. Vs.State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of case no. 2578 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chilhiya, District-Siddharth Nagar be quashed.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.3. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. 4. At this stage only a prima facie cas...

Cit Vs. R.M.L. Mehrotra

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2010]320ITR403(All); [2010]186TAXMAN137(All)

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in a block assessment there is no scope of an assessment based on best judgment of an Assessing Officer and that the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of C.S.T. v. H.M. Eusufali H.M. Abdul Ali will not apply to it?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that since no hidden assets, movable or immovable, had been found, the assessee could not be expected to have made a fortune of unaccounted professional receipts?2. The reference relates to the block period from 1.4.1986 to 25.9.1996.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent assisted by his son, Dr. Sanjay Me...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. JaIn Colonizers P. Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2009]319ITR383(All)

1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated August 3, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has been admitted, vide order dated December 10, 2002, on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in reducing the penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) from Rs. 99,500 to Rs. 2,337 for the assessment year 1989-90 whereas the relevant amendment made to this Section came into effect with effect from October 1, 1991, only.2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90 in respect of penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are as under:4. The respondent-assessee commenced its business during the year 1989-90. It was required to de...