Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC288; (1998)1UPLBEC83
D.P. Mohapatra, C.J. 1. On a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court to decide the question whether the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman or member of the Town Area Committee before confirming the order of his removal from office under Section 7A of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), this case has been placed before the Full Bench. In the reference order, the following questions have been formulated for consideration by the Full Bench-'(i) Whether it is obligatory on the State Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman of Town Area Committee before confirmation under second proviso to Section 7A of the Act of the order of the District Magistrate removing him? (ii) Whether Government is required to pass a speaking order while confirming the order of the District Magistrate under the above provisions?'From the discussions in the reference order. it appears that the Division Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2401
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Khurshed Alam learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned standing counsel.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.2.2007 by which order the District Magistrate suspended the petitioner's arm license and directed him to deposit the same with the police station. By the same order a notice was also given to the petitioner to show cause as to why his license be not cancelled. The order of suspension was passed on the basis of report submitted by the In-charge Inspector, Kotwali, Circle Officer, Rudrapur and the Additional Superintendent of Police. The reason as noticed in the order for suspension was an incident which took place on 20.11.2006 in the after noon at 2.30 P.M. at the time of inauguration of the Primary Pathshala situate at village Fatehpur. At time of inauguration the petitioner along with his group killed one Ram Pravesh Nishad by his licensed pistol. A criminal case Under Section 302 I.P.C. Was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1963]14STC646(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions) has submitted to this Court, at the instance of an assessee, a statement of the case raising the following questions:-(1) Whether there was any evidence on which the Judge (Revisions) could hold that the assessee was carrying on business in his own right as a dealer and not as a commission agent ?(2) Whether the fact (effect) of the applicant having obtained a licence under Section 6 on the 26th November, 1949, was to exempt him from liability to sales tax for the entire assessment year 1949-50 ?(3) Whether on the facts of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 21 as it stood on the date of assessment, the applicant was liable to pay a licence fee only or sales tax on his turnover as assessee ?2. The assessee is a commission agent-kachcha arhatia-and arranges sale or purchase of foodgrains, oil seeds etc. It arranges sale on behalf of sellers (and purchase on behalf of purchasers) ; itself does not do any act of selling. For its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(3)AWC1687
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard parties counsel. With their consent this writ petition is disposed of finally.2. By means of this writ petition, the tenant has challenged the order of the lower appellate authority dated 23.10.1997 rejecting the petitioner's application for cross-examination of Smt. Prem Arora and the application for returning the will to the landlord which he had filed. By the same order, the prayer for issuing Commission has also been rejected on the ground that no such application was found on the record.3. When this writ petition came for admission before Hon. Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. on 11.11.1997, his Lordship was of the view that so far as the order rejecting the application for cross-examination of Smt. Prema Devi and of returning the will was concerned, it required no interference. Notices were, however, issued to the respondents with regard to the petitioner's prayer for quashing the order of the lower appellate court refusing to issue Commission.4. It is provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
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!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1177
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2/3rd July, 1991 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur contained in Annexure 3 of the writ petition whereby the petitioner's appointment on the post of lecturer in History' has been disapproved by cancelling or modifying/reviewing the earlier order of approval dated 4.3.1987 and the respondents 3 was permitted to work as lecturer in History in the institution in question.2. The brief facts of the case are that Jharkhandey Mahadev Rashtriya Inter College is a recognised institution (hereinafter referred to as the institution) Under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Institution is also receiving grants in aid out of State fund for the purpose of payment of salary to the Staff of institution under the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971, herein after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Under challenge in this petition, is an order dated 14.5.2013, whereby the District Magistrate/Collector, Faizabad has issued a direction for attachment of certain properties alleged to have been acquired by the petitioners by commission of offences under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that before passing the order under Section 14(1) of the Act for attachment of properties, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have recorded his reasons for being satisfied that the property intended to be attached was acquired as a result of offences triable under the Act. He has also argued that the only material considered by the District Magistrate to record such a satisfaction in the impugned order are the report dated 13.5.13 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad and the report of the investigating officer dated 29.4.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992ACJ463; AIR1992All33
ORDER1. Whether Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) with a view to decide an application under S. 166 of the Act has power to issue Commission to examine witnesses, as provided under 0. 26, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) or in other words whether the provisions of O.26, R. 4 of the Code would apply to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) is short question that falls for determination in the present revision.2. The factual matrix is that an application before the Tribunal was filed by the applicant at the stage of evidence, to examine Dr. K. P. Srivastava, Head of Orthopaedics Department, and Dr. Rabi Semarwal, Senior Orthopaedics Surgeon, S. N. Medical College, Agra by issuing a Commission under O.26, R. 4 of the Code. That application has been rejected under the impugned order against which present revision has been filed. Even though the revision w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1582
1. Petitioner M/s R.C. Gupta & Sons is aggrieved by an order, dt. 16th June, 1976 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, in Appeal No. 90 of 1975-76 (Farrukhabad) filed under Section 18, Arms Act. It has accordingly approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Petitioner carried on business as arms and ammunition dealer in the city of Farrukhabad under a licence issued to it under the provisions of the Arms Act. On 30-9-1975, office of the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad issued a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the licence granted to it be not revoked on various grounds specified therein. In due course, the petitioner submitted its reply and the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, by its order, dt. 22-1-1976 directed that the licence issued to the petitioner in Form No. 14' (licence for sale custody) be cancelled. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal No. 90 of 1975-76) under Section 18, Arms Act, before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(All)54; [1981]127ITR287(All); [1980]4TAXMAN490(All)
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. The petitioner, Swadeshi Polytex Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, distributing and dealing in polyester fibre, organic and inorganic heavy chemicals, etc. Itfollows the mercantile system of accounting and the financial year of the company ends on the last day of September every year. In respect of the financial year ending 30th September, 1973, relating to the assessment year 1974-75, it submitted its return on the 22nd February, 1975, showing a loss of Rs. 5,47,44,770. Subsequently, it submitted a revised return on the 31st December, 1976, showing a loss of Rs. 6,09,42,720. Another revised return was filed by the petitioner on the 26th November, 1977, showing a loss of Rs. 6,37,49,940. In regard to the aforesaid returns and revised returns pursuant to notices issued under Section 142(1...
Tag this Judgment!