Allahabad Court March 2011 Judgments
Bindheshwari Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Sri Sanjay Mohan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.2. Initially, the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7750 (S/S) of 2009 ( Bindheshwari Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others ) and on 1.12.2009 this court passed the following orders:-Issue notice to opposite pares nos. 4 and 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eligible candidate for being ? promoted to Class III by virtue of the fact he is working on the said post since 01.10.1973. His further submission is that the petitioner is going to retire within a period of one and a half years.. It is stated that no Class IV employee has been promoted on Class III post in promotee quota in the institution and the vacancy has been filled by direct requirement quota. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Si...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Cantt Dry Cleaners,119 Sadar Bazar,lko.(Morning Session) Vs. Union ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of contract in favour of opposite-party no.3 on 14.11.2008 with effect from 15.11.2008 to 14.11.2011 by the opposite-party no.2 for a period of three years. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a sole proprietary concern owned by petitioner no.2 and is engaged in laundry business since 1970. The opposite-parties no.1 and 2 (hereinafter mentioned as Railways) invited the tender for washing/cleaning, drying, pressing of bed rolls including linen used by the passengers in the trains for a period of three years. Earlier, during the period 18.2.2004 to 17.2.2007, the petitioner was awarded the contract for providing the services of mechanised washing/cleaning drying and pressing of the bed rolls including the linen etc. The contract was extended from 18.2.2007 till 31.3.2008 and for a further period of four months on the basis of single quotation. 3. For the period from 2008 to 2011 vide notice no.2 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Vs. State of Up
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Challenge in this Appeal is to the verdict of conviction recorded by Addl Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2009 whereby the appellant who was arraigned of offences under section 302/309 and section 25/4 Arms Act has been visited with the punishment by awarding sentences of imprisonment for life studded with fine totalling Rs 11,0,00/- for the offences aforesaid.2. The informant/complainant in the case is Smt Maya Devi who gave a written report at the police station Chakeri Kanpur Nagar on 22.3.2008 at 11.30 am alleging therein that her son namely Sunil appellant in this case had a row with her daughter Anita, who refused to give in before the demand of the appellant for Holi expenses and infuriated over refusal, the appellant assaulted the Anita, and two daughters of Sunita who was a divorcee, (Saloni aged about 8 years and Pragiya aged about one year) with a Chopper (an edged weapon) and thereafter, he also attempted self immolation by striking himsel...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rotomac Pens Pvt. Limited Vs. State Level Committee, Lucknow, Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. This is a revision filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act preferred against the order of the Tribunal 27.8.2003.2. The applicant is a Company , incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The applicant is also registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The applicant established a new unit for the manufacturing of writing instruments in the year 1993. The date of production of the applicant-Company was 23.3.1993. The first sale was dated 3 rd May, 1993. The initial fixed capital investment was Rs.99,54,118/=. The applicant applied for exemption under Section 4-A of the Act. The application was allowed and an eligibility certificate bearing No.710, dated 1.7.1995 was issued. The applicant-unit had undergone for diversification. Thereafter, the applicant had undergone for the third diversification in the year 1997 and the first sale took place on 5.7.1997. The additional fixed capital investment was disclosed at Rs.40,54,702/=. An app...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sharad Carriers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. These are two revisions, under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Tribunal dated 24.7.2003, both relating to the assessment year 1992- 93.2. The applicant is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business of transportation of goods from one place to another place. The applicant is the owner of the Vehicle No. RJ-20/G-0125. 3. It appears that M/s. IPCL, Vadodara sold Methyl Acrylate weighing 10.245 MT to M/s. CFCL, Haldia on 15.10.1992. The consignment was cleared through Excise Gate Pass No. 173. In respect of the aforesaid goods, G.R. No. 5021 was issued. The goods were loaded in Vehicle No. RJ 20/G-0125. When the aforesaid Vehicle reached at the Entry Check Post at Mugarra, District Mathura on 20.10.1992, the Driver of the Truck obtained a transit pass in Form 34, as prescribed under Section 28-B of the Act, read with Rule 87 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules (hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Vishal Vs. A.D.J Fatehpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no.3 Binda Deen Pandey has filed an injunction suit in the form of Original suit no.44 of 1994 against respondent nos. 4 and 5 Amar Bahadur Singh and Sher Singh. Petitioner filed application for impleadment stating therein that land in dispute was in the possession of the petitioner and on 22.7.1979 Gaon sabha had executed a patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in dispute. The impleadment application was allowed by the trial court/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehpur on 8.9.2000. Against the said order plaintiff-respondent no.3 filed Civil revision no.51 of 2000. Additional District Judge, Court no. IV, Fatehpur allowed the revision on 2.8.2011. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 3. The plaintiff claimed that part of the property in dispute over which his house was constructed was purchased by him through sale deed dated 6.10.1970 from Ram Sewak and in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluwa and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondents nos. 1 to 4. No one appeared on behalf of respondents No.5 to 11 even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Petitioners who are 8 in numbers purchased different portions of plot no 3825-M situate in Mauja Bhaisaundha Pargana and tehsil Karvi District Banda from Laxmi Prasad father of respondent nos. 10 and 11 through different sale deeds. Total purchased area was 11.25 acres. Details of the sale deeds are given in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the writ petition. The sale deeds were executed in 1976, 1979 and 1983.2. Proceedings for declaration of surplus land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 had been initiated against Shri Laxmi Prasad proposing to declare 4.83 acres irrigated land as surplus. Prescribed authority through order dated 3.10.1986 held that no land was surplus with Laxmi Prasad. The judgment was reversed in appeal which was allowed on 5.4.1988 (appeal no....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Singh. Vs. Ranvir Singh and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist.2. The respondent first set filed Original Suit No.643 of 2007 in which the revisionist was defendant first set and the respondent no.4 was defendant second set. In the said suit the relief sought was for a decree of declaration declaring the impugned sale deed dated 19.05.2007 alleged to be executed by the defendant second set in favour of the defendant first set in respect of the land as null and void and further for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from creating any kind of interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.3. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are owners and are in possession of land situated at village Kuarsi, which is integral part of plot no.275Gha. It is alleged that late Asha Ram was bhumidhar of various agriculture plots including plot nos.275Gha and 276 Gha and after the death of Asha Ram his three sons inherited the entire estate left by deceased in...
Tag this Judgment!Tikam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. Heard Sri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel, for the Staterespondents and Sri C.K. Parekh learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.2. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 contested the election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Fatehpur Sikri held on 22 nd of December, 2010. The counting of votes took place on 22 nd of December, 2010. In the counting both the candidates received 33 votes each. The Returning Officer, after informing both the candidates that result of the election shall be declared by draw of lot, asked a minor girl of five years to take out one slip out of two containing name of the candidates. It was also informed that the name slip of the candidate which shall remain in the box after the draw of lot shall be declared elected. The names of both the candidates (petitioner and respondent No.4) were written down on two slips and the minor girl took out one of the slips which contained the name of Ti...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Idgah, Agra Vs. the Commissioner of Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. This is a revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the (Central Act) arising from the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.2003.2. In the present revision the following questions have been raised :1- Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in enhancing the turnover by Rs. 5 crores after recording the finding of fact that there is no question of evasion of any tax in the case of the applicant even though some mistake may be there regarding posting of entry or classification?2- Whether the enhancement of turnover of Rs.5 crores is liable to be knocked off and/ or, in the alternative, to be reduced and the disclosed turnover is liable to be accepted?3- Whether even assuming without admitting that on account of some clerical mistake regarding posting of the entries or classification the enhancement is to be made since admittedly there is no eva...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »