Allahabad Court February 2015 Judgments
Devasheesh Pathak and Others Vs. Bar Council of India Thru' Its Secy. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 1. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioners have sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice/advertisement (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No. 3-the examination conducting university, in so far as it seeks to prescribe the maximum age limit of 20 years as an essential criterion for appearing in the Common Law Admission Test -2015 (in short "CLAT-2015). 2. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners had issued notice by its order dated 4.2.2015 to Respondents No. 1 to 3 directing them to file counter affidavit within two weeks, while the petitioner was directed to take steps through speed post within three days. 3. The office has submitted its report dated 23.2.2015, indicating that notices were issued to the Respondents No. 1 to 3 through speed post, fixing 24.2.2015 as the date of hearing but neither acknowledgement nor the undelivered cover has returned after service of notice as yet and a...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This criminal misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with a prayer for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 19.1.2012 passed by the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Bareilly in complaint case no.4791 of 2011 (M/s Brijraj Associates Vs. Om Prakash Singh) u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act , P.S. Subhash Nagar, district Bareilly. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question dated 5.12.2010 for an amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- was dishonored by the S.B.I, Branch Sahupuri, Varanasi with an endorsement that the signature of the drawer of the cheque do not match with the signatures available with the bank and the signature of the drawer is incomplete on the cheque. Such endorsement of the Bank does not constitute the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act in view of the language used therein. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Dr. Satish Chandra, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in ITA No. 05/Alld/09 for the Block Period 1.4.1988 to 3.5.1998. The assessee has also filed the writ petition praying for refund of the seized cash. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2nd May, 1998, three persons namely Shri Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal, Shri Vijay Kumar Soni and Shri Phool Raj Singh were going on a Rickshaw to board the Prayagraj Express Train for going to Delhi. They were detained by the police and a total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- was recovered from their possession. On interrogation, all the three persons stated that the money belongs to the assessee i.e. Anil Kumar Chaddha alias Guddu, who in reply to the query by the police stated that the cash belongs to the Firm M/s. Chaddha and Others. Finally, the matter was referred to the Income Tax Department, who has issued a notice under Section 158BC o...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner is carrying on the business of plying trucks and transport business on commission basis in the name and style of M/s Data Carriers and Ayush Carrying Corporation. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner also carried on the business of purchase and sale of betel nuts and catechu. 2. The income tax department carried out a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 07.11.2006 at the business premises and godown of the petitioner. During the survey, the income tax department found the stock of betel nuts and catechu to the value of Rs. 66,08,000/-and unexplained cash of Rs. 3,37,000/-. The petitioner was not maintaining any books of account. Loose papers were impounded by the surveying party showing an investment of Rs. 40,55,500/- outside the books of accounts. Based on the loose papers found during the survey, the petitioner gave his statement and offered to surrender the following amount for impos...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ. The present reference to a bench of three Judges is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (Stamp Act). The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench for determination by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are as follows: "(1) Whether the registering officer can refer a document even if he does not find that the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the market value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (2) Whether the Collector Stamps has power to fix the valuation of a plot on the assumption that the same is likely to be used for commercial purposes, and whether the presumed future prospective use of the land can be a criterion for valuation by the Collector; (3) What should be the norms for fixing the valuation of a free-hold land viz-a-vis lease land; (4) Whether the Collector can demand stamp duty under Section 47-A of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Garg Vs. Munney Khan and Another
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. Both these writ petitions between the same parties, have been filed challenging the order of respondent no.2 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dated 15.1.2003, whereby, claim of the employee respondent no.1 arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of the wages, have been allowed together with the direction for payment of compensation. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to these writ petitions are that respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for payment of a sum of Rs.17502.75/- on account of payment of less than the minimum rates of the wages. It is alleged that he is working as a Mistri and is being paid Rs.1400/- per month, while in an inspection made by the Labour Enforcement Officer Sri G.N. Srivastava on 26.7.1998, he found him entitled for minimum wages at the rate of Rs.2566.85/- per month. It is alleged that on basis of such inspection, a claim under the Act being M.W. Case N...
Tag this Judgment!Mustakim Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for revisionist and Ms. Anjum Haq, learned A.G.A. Whether an unmarried major Muslim daughter who is unable to maintain herself, can claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C, is an issue which has fallen for consideration in this revision. 1. Ms. Anjum/O.P. No.2, daughter of the revisionist, claimed maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court on 30.6.2007 granted maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month, which was paid for certain duration. However, as maintenance awarded, was insufficient to maintain O.P. No.2, she filed an application for enhancement which came to be rejected on 28.5.2013 on the ground that after she had attained majority, she forfeits her right to claim maintenance. On 14.5.2013 as arrears of Rs.12000/- for the period 31.5.2012 to 31.5.2013 remained unpaid, she initiated proceedings for recovery of the said amount. The application was opposed on the ground that once she had ...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The present reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by an order of the Division Bench dated 3 November 2014. Before we set out the issues which have been referred for adjudication by the Full Bench, a brief reference to the background in which the reference arose would be in order. Clause 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 20041 provides that with a view to effecting a fair distribution of scheduled commodities, the State Government may issue directions under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to set up such number of fair price shops in an area and in the manner as it deems fit. Clause 4 requires that a fair price shop be run through such person and in such manner as the Collector, subject to the directions of the State Government, may decide. A person appointed to run a fair price shop under sub-clause (1) acts as an agent of the State Government. Moreover, under sub-clause (3), a person so a...
Tag this Judgment!Nanhey Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
The fifty two appellants had come up in writ jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge assailing an order dated 8.5.2014 of the third respondent who is the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. The third respondent had rejected the claim of the appellants seeking preference for appointment to Class-III posts/technical grade-II (T.G.-II), Fireman, Lineman etc. and an advertisement dated 6.9.2014 issued by the fourth respondent (Secretary, Vidhyut Sewa Ayog Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.) for not granting preference to the appellants in the vacancies offered. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents to give a preference to apprentice trainees in the selection process as well as in age pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshak Berozgar Sangh (AIR 1995 SC 1115). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 24.11.201...
Tag this Judgment!Bankey Bihari Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
This special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9 December 2014 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was appointed as a Bus Conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 20 March 1978. His services are governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (Regulations). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the issuance of a charge sheet on 6 July 2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet. His reply was not found satisfactory and a notice to show cause was issued to him on 15 December 2005, proposing to punish him for the loss stated to have been incurred by the Corporation in the amount of Rs 2,99,848/-. After considering the reply of the appellant and the report of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority found the appellant to be negligent in the performance of his duties, thereby causing a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »