Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2008All109; 2008(1)AWC801
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by recovery certificate dated 30.9.2007 issued by Taxation Officer, Mahrajganj for recovering a sum of Rs. 5,50,349/- from the petitioner towards passenger tax/additional tax and penalty for the period 1.1.2005 to 30.9.2007 and 1.3.2004 to 30.9.2007 in respect to vehicle No. UHX 0328 (Bus), the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said recovery certificate. He has also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to decide his application dated 16.12.2007 for recalling the ex parte order.2. The petitioner is owner of a bus bearing the aforesaid number which was granted a permanent stage carriage permit on route 'Khanuwa-Nautanwa-Thunthibari via Bhagwanpur', which was valid from 24.5.2000 to 23.5.2005. It is said that the vehicle completed 20 years of age on 25.3.2005 and, therefore, the petitioner sold it to a Kabari on 1.4.2005 and intimated abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All447
T.S. Misra, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Prem Prakash, I agree with the conclusions reached by him but I would like to add something on the question of interlocutory injunction.2. The grant of an interlocutory injunction is a remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. When an application for interlocutory injunction is made upon contested facts the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it or both is uncertain end will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. It is with a view to mitigate the risk of injunction to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that a practice has arisen to grant him relief by way of temporary injunction. The object seems to be to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(All)247; [1986]161ITR259(All)
S.C. Mathur, J.1. By our short order dated November 29, 1984, we had allowed this petition and quashed the orders dated February 13, 1979, and February 19, 1981, annexures 3 and 10, respectively, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, in proceedings under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Act No. 43 of 1961, in short 'Act'.2. By the impugned order dated February 13, 1979, the petitioner's application under Section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalty and penal interest arising from late filing of income-tax returns for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 was rejected by Sri S.K. Lall, the then Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and by order dated February 19, 1981, his successor, Sri Dharni Dhar, has refused to reconsider the order of his predecessor in the light of subsequent developments. Left with no remedy, the petitioner has approached this court for redress of his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution. A few facts material for the di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All445
Omprakash Trivedi, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by Afzal Ahmad Naqvi and arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1971 passed by the Civil Judge. Lucknow, setting aside the decree passed by Munsif North. Lucknow, in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.2. The respondents filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of Munsif North. Lucknow, for a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the defendant was their tenant in a certain house of which they were landlords, that the respondents had moved an application for permission to file a suit for ejectment under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) which permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This permission was set aside by the Commissioner in revision; Whereupon the respondents filed a revision before the State Government by an order dated 5-8-1966 allowed the revision and granted to the respondents permission to fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All557
Kidwai, J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother and I concur in the order proposed by him. In view of the Full discussion of the facts and the law contained in that judgment it is hardly necessary for me to add anything. I would, however, like to emphasise that though the Court may inquire into the fact of the Governor's satisfaction, it cannot inquire into the reasons for that satisfaction or into the sufficiency of those reasons. 2. In the present case there is no evidence to show that the Governor was not in fact satisfied. The material contained in the counter affidavit (the correctness of which is not disputed) indicates that the Governor was satisfied after mature and prolonged deliberation of the necessity for an amendment of the Sales Tax Act in order to meet the revenue requirements of the State. At first the necessity was not immediate since correspondence was going on between the State Government and the Union Government with reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC853; (1999)1UPLBEC575
S.R. Singh, J. 1. Petitioners'grievances are focussed on orders by which their services came to be terminated as 'no longer required'. The petitioners seek the reliefs of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders by which their services were terminated in purported exercise of powers under notification dated 29.4.1980 as 'no longer required' and for a direction in the nature of mandamus to pay them salary.2. Petitioners in this fascicle of writ petitions were appointed junior clerks/Asstt. Cashiers Grade-2concerned Sub-Regional Transport Offices. The Civil Writ Petition No. 13799 of 1998 wearing the mantle of leading file, pertains to Sub-Regional Transport Offices in Meerut Region. The appointments were seemingly made in the purported compliance of the service Rules notified by Notification dated 29.4.80 and ostensibly against permanent vacancies after prior intimation of the vacancies to the Addl. Transport Commissioner (Head quarters) U. P. Lucknow vide D.O. letter date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1973]30STC357(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. The first petitioner, M/s. India Leather House, Agra, is a dealer within the meaning of that term in the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The second petitioner is a partner in M/s. India Leather House. The petitioners did not file any return of their turnover of sales for the assessment year 1956-57. On 24th March, 1962, the first petitioner was assessed to sales tax under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. An appeal was preferred against the assessment order. It was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for assessment. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of remand. It was dismissed. The Sales Tax Officer made another assessment. Again an appeal was preferred. It was allowed. The appellate authority remanded the case again to the Sales Tax Officer for assessment. It is at this stage that the petitioners have filed the present petition.2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted two points for our consideration. First, there is no materia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas835(All); [1983]144ITR496(All); [1981]7TAXMAN213(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. On November 28, 1979, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Meerut, filed two complaints under Sections 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act, 1961, against nine persons, the ninth of which was M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., Modinagar, through its chairman, Sri K.N. Modi. One complaint related to the assessment year 1965-66, while the other related to the year 1966-67. It was alleged that M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., accused No. 9, filed returns of its income for the aforesaid assessment years wherein deliberately excessive expenditure was claimed in the form of payment of agency commission to several firms. The assessments were completed on March 24, 1970, for the assessment year 1965-66, and on March 26, 1971, for the year 1966-67. For both the years the excessive claim was disallowed on the finding that the firms to whom the agency commission was alleged to have been paid were bogus and non-existing firms to the knowledge of the concerned persons. In para. 30 of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2266
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. Two questions of law of some importance arise for determination in this revision. The first question is whether a Magistrate has power to direct that sample of hairs of an accused may be taken for the purpose of comparison against his wishes and the second question is whether such a course of action violates the fundamental right of the accused as guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.2. Before considering the rival contentions advanced at the Bar it will be useful to notice the facts of the case in brief.Dr. P. S. Negi, Chief Medical Officer, Hardwar was murdered and when inquest was held on his body some hairs were found in his hands. The hairs were sealed in a packet by the Investigating Officer. During investigation it was revealed that at the time of incident a scuffle had ensued between the deceased and the assailant and in the course of said scuffle the deceased had caught the assailant by holding the hairs of his head and the same had come in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1333; [2000(85)FLR264]; (2000)IILLJ382All; (2000)3UPLBEC1973
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the Impugned dismissal order dated 30.12.1997 Annexure-10 to the writ petition and the order dated 28.3.1998 Annexure-12 to the writ petition.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was in the service of the Allahabad Bank and was an officer in junior management grade-1 and was posted as Assistant Manager. He was given a charge-sheet dated 29.7.1994 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition and he was suspended by the order dated 21.1.1994 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that serious allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was held in which he was given an opportunity of hearing and the enquiry officer submitted a report copy of which Is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed and his appeal was also rejected.4. Sri T. P. Singh learned counsel for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!