Allahabad Court May 2011 Judgments

Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2011AIR(All)157;

Pankaj Mithal, J. In respect to Instrument No.2319 of 2008 proceedings for determining deficiency in stamp duty were initiated. Petitioner expressed willingness to deposit the deficiency provided no interest is levied. However, the Collector Moradabad vide order dated 15.11.2010 determined the deficiency and refused to waive the interest. Against the aforesaid two orders the present writ petition has been filed only on the ground that as the petitioner has willingly deposited deficiency in stamp duty the interest directed to be charged be waived. Section 47(4-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 mandates the Collector to demand simple interest @? one and a half percent per mansem on the amount of deficient stamp duty and the interest is payable from the date of execution of the instrument till the date of? actual payment of the deficient stamp duty. In view of above provision payment of interest on deficient stamp duty on account of delay? is mandatory. The mandate of a statutory provision...

Manorma Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been examined. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to deficiency in stamp duty in respect sale deed of Gata No.732 total area .5520 hectare situate in village Bardani, Pargana and Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. The husband of the petitioner Sumant Lal Tiwari was one of the coowners of the aforesaid land along with his brother Chandan Lal. He purchased the half share of his brother Chandan Lal also vide sale deed dated 7.8.07. Thereafter, he transferred half of the whole of the land in favour of his wife Smt. Manorama Tiwari (petitioner) vide registered sale deed dated 1.10.07. The aforesaid sale deed dated 1.10.07 is subject matter of the present proceedings. Petitioner disclosed the market value of the land as an agricultural land and paid stamp duty accordingly. On the report of the Sub-Divisiona...

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ot ...

Court: Allahabad

The two petitioners are brothers. They have purchased a piece of land from one Smt. Chandrakanta vide sale deed dated 19.12.02 for consideration of Rs.2.90 lacs but for the purposes of payment of stamp duty its market value was disclosed as Rs.31,73,920/- and stamp duty paid accordingly. On the said land there existed a six storied hotel building but the building was excluded from the sale as the vendor had no right in the building. The Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as Stamp Act) held that the transfer of the land by the aforesaid sale deed included the transfer of the building and as such determined the market value by adding the value of the building to that of the land. Accordingly, deficiency in stamp duty was determined. The order of the Collector has been upheld by C.C.R.A. in appeal. The petitioners have thus, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, challenging the order of the Collector dated...

Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2011CrLJ4496

VINOD PRASAD, J. Revisionist Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit, a juvenile in conflict with law, has preferred instant criminal revision U/S 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Act), seeking his release on bail in Crime No.240 of 2010 under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. P.S. Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat. His bail prayer already stood rejected by Juvenile Justice Board and lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal no.59 of 2011, vide orders dated 2.2.2011 and 26.2.2011 respectively. At the outset a brief resume of background facts are sketched below. Sonia(victim), a young damsel, aged about 14 years, resident of Karmalipur Garhi, Baghpat, had gone to Chopra Maheshpur to attend a marriage ceremony on 30.6.2010, where, at 10:00 p.m., four accused persons namely Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit(revisionist), Umed, Kallu @ Kuldeep and an unknown accused kidnapped her at gun point by gagging her mouth when marriage procession was in progress ...

U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, Ballia and Another Vs. State of U.P. an ...

Court: Allahabad

Amitava Lala, J. This special appeal has been filed with an application for leave to appeal, against the order dated 06th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge purportedly on an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: “Sri R.B. Pradhan, Standing Counsel informs that the enquiry in respect of the payment of salary against nonsanctioned and non-available posts in various institutions of district-Ballia has been completed and it has been found that in as many as 24 institutions payment of salary has been made against non-sanctioned/non-available posts. Detail of the institutions and the payment so fraudulently made has been brought on record today before the Court. The enquiry in that regard is stated to have been conducted by the Chief Secretary and thereafter by Sri Chandra Prakas...

Ms A.H. Wheeler and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Civil Judge, Sr.Div., ...

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. 2.Submission on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner is a licensee of Government of India authorized to sale reading materials at various railway stations across the country including Delhi Junction Railway Station of Northern Railway and Platform No.1, 1-A to Platform No.17 and east hall including west hall of Delhi Junction. The petitioner has to pay royalty/license fee at the rate of 5% of gross sale made by it. It is contended that in order to conduct its business, the petitioner appoints various agents for sale of its magazines, newspaper, periodical and journals etc. at the petitioner's Bookstalls through out the country. Respondent no.2 was appointed as Sales Agent for the petitioner's Bookstalls at Delhi Junction Railway Station for a period of one year from 16.5.2009 and thereafter a fresh agreement was entered on 26.5.2010, copy of which has been anne...

Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. (1) In the writ petition preferred by petitioner Amar Singh has mounted onslaught on the FIR dated 15.10.2009 registered at case crime no 458 of 2009 under section 420, 467, 471, 120 B IPC, sections 7/8/9/13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at police Station Babu Purwa Kanpur Nagar and sought quashing of the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. (2) In the second petition preferred by petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi, the relief sought in this petition is for a writ of mandamus directing Enforcement Directorate arrayed as respondent no 4 to take up the investigation of case crime no 458 of 2009 registered at PS Babu Purwa Distt Kanpur Nagar and investigate the same in accordance with Law attended with further relief of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Cell Economic offences Wing as also the Enforcement Directorate to submit such periodical reports as may be deemed fit as to the ...

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Petitioner had purchased land measuring 84 sq. meter from one Harjeet Singh, which was part of Aaraji Nos. 656/1 m. and 657/1 m. On the said sale deed proper stamp duty was paid. 2. Subsequently, it transpired that in the aforesaid sale deed though total area purchased was correctly mentioned as 84 sq. meters but instead of mentioning the Aaraji Nos. 656/1 m. and 657/1 m. only additional Aaraji numbers 658/1 m. and 659/1 m. were also mentioned. 3. The vendor Harjeet Singh was not the owner of land in the aforesaid two additional Arajis and as such was not competent to even transfer the same by the aforesaid sale deed. Accordingly, a correction deed was executed and was presented for registration on 27.12.06 for deleting the numbers of additional Aarajis from the aforesaid sale deed. 4. The Additional Collector vide order dated 5.10.07 treated the aforesaid correction deed  Titimmanama) to be a fresh sale deed  and determined the deficiency. The aforesaid ...

Shivalik Ghosh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

VINOD PRASAD, J.Challenge in this revision by mother Chitali Ghosh(A2) and her son Shivalik Ghosh(A1), is to their summoning dated 24.1.2011 in criminal case no. 771 of 2011,State Vs Shivalik Ghosh and another, relating to crime no. 32 of 2010, for offences under Sections 323, 328, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana, Sector 32, NOIDA, District G.B. Nagar by A.C.J.M.-I, G.B. Nagar.A glimpse of background facts, as are perceptible from the affidavit of Shivalik Ghosh filed in support of this revision, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits are that on 3.12.2010 at 12.45 p.m., victim-informant Barnali Baishya (R2) lodged an FIR at P.S. Mahila Thana NOIDA, G.B. Nagar as crime no. 32 of 2010 U/Ss 323, 328, 376 I.P.C. vide annexure no. 1 to the affidavit alleging therein that informant is a resident of H- 137, Sector 22, NOIDA and was employed in a Software Company. In the month of August, 2010 while surfing on internet on Jeewan Sathi.Com she developed acquaintance with A1revisionist Shivali...

Peeyush Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Ghaziabad and the appellate order thereto dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in proceeding under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act,1899. By the aforesaid orders the authorities have determined the deficiency in stamp duty in connection with the sale dated 19.11.1999 by treating property to be of commercial nature though according to the petitioner it is purely residential property. In assailing the aforesaid orders the primary contention of Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the petitioner as contemplated by Rule-9 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and as such the order of the Additional Collector is ex parte. The appellate authority in dealing with above aspect as to whether the order passed by the Additional Collector was in violation of the principle of natural justi...