Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(4)AWC3270
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.7.1985 of a learned single Judge in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1983 whereby the petition filed by Mrs. Ethel Walters for grant of Letters of Administration of by estate of Mrs. Maud Flora Datt (for short Maud Datt) was allowed.2. The property in dispute consists of house No. 7 N. K. Mukherjee Road and house No. 9 (old No. 14) N.K. Mukherjee Road. Allahabad, besides a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000 and 1,200 in Saving Bank Account in Central Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad and some household goods. The houses originally belonged to Eugin Eustas Datt, son of Rai Sahab Jeewan Masih Datt (for short J.M. Datt). He had three brothers and one of them was Archibald Datt whose son is the appellant Ajit Datt, Eugin Eustas Datt (for short E.E. Datt) died issueless on 28.11.1959 leaving a Will in favour of his wife. Mrs. Maud Datt whereby hebequeathed his entire estate to her, a probate of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(1)AWC529; (2002)1UPLBEC462
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Smt. Saiyada widow of late constable Iqbal Hussain has filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make necessary orders for the payment of arrears of pension with effect from 1.6.1977 to 30.12.1979 relating to constable Iqbal Hussain who retired from district Ghazipur, to pay her the entire balance of retirement dues of her late husband and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing theopposite parties to fix the family pension and to pay the arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1980. A counter-affidavit of Sri Ram Palat Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, district Ghazipur, has been filed.2. I have heard Sri G. C. Gahrana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that late Iqbal Hussain served as constable in U.P. Police. He was last posted at police station Dildarnagar, district Ghazipur, and retired on 30.5.1977. After his retirement, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003]114CompCas70(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This application has been filed by Sri Khalid Mukhtar son of the late Mukhtar Hamid Ali, resident of Mukhtar Manzil, Civil Lines, Aligarh, under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), in the matter of Buckeye Batteries (P.) Ltd. (in liquidation) praying to quash the recovery certificate dated March 29, 2001, issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. (PICUP) to the Collector, Aligarh ; and to stay proceedings against the applicant as a guarantor of financial assistance granted to the company (in liquidation).2. By notice dated March 29, 2001, the court did not find any ground to grant interim relief and directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of the contract of guarantee. The required supplementary along with the bond of guarantee executed in favour of PICUP in Legal Form No. 2 was filed on April 12, 2001. On the same date, the court granted an interim protection to the effect that no coerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(88)ECC466; 2004(177)ELT71(All)
R.B. Misra, J. 1. This Writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 5.12.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 The Customs, Excise & Cold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi under Section 35(c)(1) of the Central Excise Act 1945 (in short called 'Act') allowing the appeal directing both the divisions for a common central registration or transfer of the credit from distillery division to the Sugar Division by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the appellant company has two manufacturing Divisions, one of them manufacturing Sugar and Molasses and the other manufacturing Industrial and potable Alcohol. The Sugar Division and the Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC301
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Special/Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and the judgment and order dated 28.4.1998 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Saharanpur.2. The dispute relates to a shop bearing Municipal No. 1/868/2 Shiv Mandir Chowk, Sharda Nagar, Saharanpur, the details whereof are given in the plaint of the Suit referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as 'the disputed shop'.3. From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a Suit for eviction, arrears of rent, damages etc. against the petitioner in respect of the disputed shop. It was, interalia, stated by the respondent in the said Suit that the petitioner was the te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(All.)473
1. ITA Nos. 762 & 763/All/1999 by the Revenue are directed against the common order of CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 18th May, 1999 in the case of both the assessees-respondents in respect of block period from 1st April, 1986 to 13th Feb., 1997, Both the assessees-respondents have also directed CO Nos. 14 and 15/All/2000 in both the departmental appeals.2. ITA Nos. 304 & 305/All/2002 by both the assessees are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dt. 14th Aug., 2002 passed under Section 158BC/154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. In both the cases of the assessees, undisclosed income was computed and thereafter it was bifurcated in the case of both the assessees percentage wise on the identical facts. Since all the matters relate to the same assessees on identical facts, therefore, all the matters were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order.4. All the matters were directed to be taken up for out of turn hearing vide order dt. 7th Oct., 2002 passed in St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC1150
A.K. Yog, J.1. Subhash Chandra, Angad Prasad, Abdul Quaiyum and Narendra Kumar Singh, four petitioners, have filed the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India praying for following reliefs :'(i) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to produce a copy of the decision of the selection committee holding the petitioners ineligible for consideration and to quash the same.(ii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith interview the petitioners for U.P. Higher Judicial Service in pursuance to the interview letters issued to them within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.(iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature quashing the entire proceedings of interview and to direct de novo interview proceedings to be conducted of all candidates including the petitioners and only thereafter to declare the final result.(iv) writ, order or direction in the nature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC1673
A.K. Yog, J.1. Notice of the writ petition was received by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, on July 19, 2001. Case was listed before the Court on several occasions but no counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. No request made to file it till this stage of hearing.2. Learned Counsels for the parties agreed that the writ petition be decided finally at the admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 2-IInd Proviso, Rules of Court, 1952. FACTS:3. One Anil Kumar Singh (father of the petitioner) working as Assistant Bhumi Sanrakshak Inspector in Government Department of State of Uttar Pradesh, died on 15.10.1998. His son, Ram Pratap Singh (petitioner before us), sought compassionate appointment on the ground of his father 'dying-in-harness' by filing an application on 5.4.1999, addressed to Soil Conservation Officer, Sharda Nahar Pranali, Pilibhit under relevant Rules, e.g., 'THE UTTAR PRADESH RECRUITMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2234
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.1. In these bunch of writ petitions, the notifications issued by the State Government on 13th January, 2004 in the exercise of power under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 21 of U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, are under challenge. By these notifications, nine districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, namely : Hathras, Gautam Budh Nagar, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Sant Kabir Nagar, Auraiya, Chandauli, Kaushambi, Shrawasti and four Commissioner's Division, namely, Basti, Devipatan, Mirzapur, Saharanpur have been abolished. Since the language of all these notifications are practically similar, we feel it necessary to reproduce one of such notifications, which runs as under :NOTIFICATION'In exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act No. III of 1901) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. I of 1904) and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)93ITD579(All.)
1. All the above departmental appeals for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1996-97 are directed against the common order CIT(A)-III, Lucknow dated 31.10.2002. I.T.A.No. 52(Alld.)/2002 by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Lucknow dated 19.11.2001 for assessment year 1998-99. All the Cross Objections are filed by the assessee mainly in support of the impugned orders. However, in assessment year 1997-98, Cross Objection is filed by the assessee without there being any departmental appeal, which we shall take up separately about its maintainability.2. Since common questions are involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals were heard together alongwith Cross Objections.However, for the sake of convenience, we take up the departmental appeal in I.T.A.No. 68(Alld.)/2003 and C.O.No. 39(Alld.)/2004 for the assessment year 1990-91 first for the purpose of disposal.I.T.A.NO. 68(ALLD.)/2003 (REVENUE'S APPEAL) AND C.O.NO.39(ALLD.)/2004-A.Y.1990-91.3. Brief facts as ...
Tag this Judgment!