Court : Allahabad
1. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement. The learned counsel for the parties advanced the arguments with reference to the writ petition no.378 of 2004 and submitted that the same shall hold good with the connected writ petition. Therefore, the facts from the file of writ petition no.378 of 2004 are noted for consideration. 2. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are medical doctors by profession and are husband and wife. The petitioner no.1 is a qualified orthopaedic surgeon and is also Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Prakash Hospital at D-12, 12-A and 12-B, Sector 33, NOIDA. He is also running his clinic from his residence besides the fact that he is operating the patients in the said Hospital. Both the petitioners claim that they are regular income tax assessee and have been filing regular income tax return under the Act. 3. The officials of the Income Tax Department on March 19, 2002 made a search under the search warrant issued under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Ashok Bhushan, J. Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. THIS bunch of 20 writ petitions has been filed challenging the selections and appointments made on the post of Assistant Review Officer (hereinafter referred to as ARO) in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The bunch has been nominated to this Court under order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. For the purposes of overseeing the selections and appointment on the post of ARO the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the Court constituted a Judges Committee. The process of selection was initiated by publication of an advertisement in newspaper on 29.07.2009. A copy of the advertisement has been enclosed as Annexure-SCA-6 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court. The advertisement mentions that the selection process shall comprise of following phases: (a) preliminary written examination, (b) main written examination (preliminary being objective in nature and main being subjective in nature), (c) computer knowledge test and (d) interview. The preliminary w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WITH the change of Government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the State of Uttar Pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. Ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties. 2. SIMILAR is the case in hand referred by the Division Bench of this Court relating to constitution of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in short CSM Nagar). 3. On account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of State Government to create districts, a Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted the present Bench. The questions referred by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under: (i) Whether the issuance of n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ("Act") arising from the order of the Tribunal dated 21.7.2004 in which following questions have been raised: "1 -Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law not upholding the order of the assessing officer wherein the addition on account of under invoiced sales of Kattha amounting to Rs.1,24,300/- was made on the basis of material in the shape of loose papers found and seized by the department at the time of search? 2 -Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment in plant and machinery and factory building amounting to Rs.1,01,345/- and Rs.3,77,982/- respectively, observing that no documents in this regard was found during the course of search ignoring the finding and observation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner (State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Aligarh Khand, Ganga Canal, District Aligarh) has challenged the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh-respondent No. 2, by which the claim of respondent No. 1 under Section 6-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred as "Act") had been allowed. 3. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition on 30.09.2013, had passed the following order in favour of the petitioner:- "Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application moved under section 6H(1) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act was not maintainable. The respondent workman was daily wager, hence the wages could not be calculated considering the salary of the regular employee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Om Prakash-VII, J. 1.Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 : "This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 b...
Tag this Judgment!