Allahabad Court December 2014 Judgments
State of U.P. Vs. Omvir and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2014
Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned AGA for the State of U.P-appellant and perused the record. This Government Appeal No. 3156 of 2007 along with Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) under Section 378 and 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 436 of 2005 (State Vs. Omvir and another) connected with S.T. no. 437/2005 (State versus Omvir), S.T. No. 438/2005 (State versus Shahzad) and S.T. No. 895 of 2005 (State versus Idrisi) acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant Rais Ahmad son of Jamil Ahmad Ansari submitted a written report scribed by one Wakil Ahmad at P.S. Kairana averring that his father Jamil Ahmad alias Jatlo was running a General Merchant shop near his hou...
Tag this Judgment!Mala Bansal Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2014
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the further proceeding of criminal case no. 53 of 2014 pending before Special Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as further proceeding in pursuance of the summoning order dated 29.10.2014 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. It appears that respondent no. 2 Manoj Kumar Jain had issued a cheque no. 409405 ACB/SV No. 1409405 on 14.3.2013 in favour of the applicant for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs in connection with the business transaction being done between them. The cheque was issued from the account maintained in the Amanath Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore. The said cheque was presented for encashment before the UCO Bank at Firozabad. The aforesaid cheque was returned back unpaid and the applicant's bank i.e. UCO Bank sent an intim...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2014
Heard Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition arises out of an award dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.), Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 28 of 2007. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent no. 3-workman on the ground that his services have been illegally terminated by the petitioner employer and he was an employee of IFFCO the petitioner and not of contractor M/s H.S. Construction, respondent no. 4. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication as under:- whether the termination of services of workman, Sri Manoj Kumar Kumar Gupta, 'Data Entry Operator' with effect from 3.6.1999, by the employer is justified and/or legal? If not, then to what relief and compensation, the workman is entitled and its effect? In reference, the...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Lko.Through Its Regional Manager Vs. Ram ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2014
Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that in an accident which took place on 27.12.2007 one Sri Ram Kumar sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep No. U.P.-32/ W-7509 insured with the National Insurance Company Limited/ appellant. 3. In order to get compensation, he filed a Motor Accidents Claim Petition no. 16 of 2008 (Ram Kumar v. Sri Ram Gupta and others), allowed by means of judgment and award dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge Court no.2, Balrampur thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3520/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, present revision has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax- II, Kanpur Vs. Ziauddin Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2014
1. Both the cross appeals have been filed against the order dated 5 March 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in I.T.A. No. 499/LUC/2094 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. On 22.01.2013, a coordinate Bench has admitted the appeal filed by the Department-appellant (ITA 467 of 2010) on the following substantial questions of law : "(a) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in canceling the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 on account of validity of notice u/s 143(2) in absence of any return, ignoring the fact that the assessee himself had offered in writing for treating one of its earlier returns to be in response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that no capital gain accrued or arose to the assessee in A.Y. 2006-07 as the transfer did not take place on 30.04.2005 without properly appreciating the facts narrated by the A.O. which wee clearly born out from records?" 3. The brief facts of the case are that t...
Tag this Judgment!Reeta Srivastava Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Another
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
By these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Securitisation Act). In the application which was filed before the District Magistrate, the second respondent pleaded that it had extended financial assistance in the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the borrowers who had executed a security agreement on 15 September 2005 against immovable property. The petitioner is a co-borrower. On a default committed by the borrowers, the second respondent stated that it had issued a demand notice on 24 June 2011 under Section 13(2) calling upon the borrowers to repay the entire dues in the amount of Rs.10,69,589/- within 60 days. According to the petitioner, on 1 September 2011, the second respondent affixed a possession notice on the property. The petitioner challenged the possession notice by filing a securitisation app...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Agarwal Company Thru. Its Partner Manoj Agarwal Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
The Northern Railway had floated a tender on 24 June 2008 for the construction of quarters within its Shantipuram Railway Colony at Alambagh, Lucknow; for the replacement of old quarters and other ancillary work. The petitioner submitted a bid which was accepted on 3 July 2008. The total cost of the work envisaged is stated to have been Rs.8.70 crores. A formal contract agreement was entered into on 24 November 2008. In pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner is stated to have submitted a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs.43,52,470/-. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Clause 64 of the Standard General Conditions of Contract in connection with Engineering Works contains an arbitration agreement. The record would indicate that the petitioner had submitted its claims to the competent authority by a letter dated 14 October 2013 (Annexure 8), raising the following claims :- 1. Loss of profit 15% of Balance work5,932,...
Tag this Judgment!Sundari Devi and Others Vs. Union of India Thru General Manager Northe ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. By means of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1989, claimants/ appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24.12.2010 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, dismissing the Claim Petition No. OA 0600676 ( Smt. Sundari Devi and others v. Union of India) . 3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants are that on 10.11.2005 Sri Hardwari Lal Gupta, husband of the claimant no.1, after purchasing second class railway ticket no.00664 from Bhira Kheri railway station boarded Century Express to go to Lucknow. While he was on the way , thrown out from the said train by dacoits after looting him beyond Bhira towards Mailani as a result of which he went to coma due to anti-mortem head injury and died. 4. In view of the said factual background, a...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 19611 by the assessee has arisen from a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 dated 25 July 2014. 2. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is AY 2007-08. 3. The Assessing Officer made an assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 24 December 2009. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.12,50,455.00 to the total income of the assessee treating it to be a deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), by an order dated 29 March 2011, deleted the addition. An appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by its judgment dated 29 November 2013. The assessee thereafter moved this Court under Section 260A of the Act. By a judgment dated 17 April 2014 in Kishori Lal Agarwal v. CIT [2014] 364 ITR 158 (All.), a Division Bench of this Court restored the proceedings back to the Tribunal with the following observat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur Vs. Meenakshi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
1. We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Agarwal, the learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the assessment framed under Section 143 (3) was void ab initio and in quashing / canceling the same, without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the jurisdictional High Coiurt in the case of Sant Baba Mohan Singh v. CIT reported in 90 ITR 197 wherein it was held that "the omission of the Income tax officer to issue notice u/s 23 (3) did not affect the ab initio jurisdiction enjoyed by the Income tax officer in respect of the proceedings." 3. We find that the contention of the appellant that a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act was issued by speed post on 17.3.2003 and again on 9.2.2004 is incorrect. The Commissioner of Incom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »