Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC648
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the order allowing the review application passed by the court below.2. The plaintiff/appellant filed Suit No. 335 of 1980 against the present respondents for possession over a piece of house described by letters A.B.C.D. in the plaint map. The suit for ejectment and recovery of damages was filed on the allegation that originally one Abdul Qayum was owner in possession of the disputed property, who sold it by a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1933 in favour of Smt. Usmani Begum. Smt. Usmani Begum by means of registered sale deed dated 26th November, 1956, sold the property in question to the plaintiffs. In the month of September, 1980, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got a sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in respect of the disputed property, for a sum of Rs. 6,000. The defendant No. 3 was never the owner or tenant of the disputed property and as such he could not execute the sale deed in favour of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC998
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are four in number, seek the following reliefs :(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated 29.7.1999, issued by respondent No. 1 (Annexure II).(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of interest from the petitioners.(iii) To issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.(iv) To award cost of the petition to the petitioners.'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :'According to the petitioners, during the excise year 1976-77 the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner No. 4 were the joint licencees (hereinafter referred to as 'F.L. 5 licencees') for the retail vend of Indian-made fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC334
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-M/s. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company, Rampur, seeks the following reliefs :(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the demand order dated 27th January, 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover any amount in pursuance of the notice dated 27th January, 1999 towards interest.(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of sum of Rs. 73,380 deposited by the petitioner on 3rd April, 1996 under protest after conferring the similar benefit as has been conferred upon M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. in Writ Petition No. 699 of 1996.(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the order of Excise Secretary dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1221; 2005(1)ESC161; (2005)1UPLBEC474
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This reference has been made to a Larger Bench by the order dated 14.7.2004 of the learned Chief Justice, for resolving the issue as to whether the service rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis can be counted for the purposes of determining the seniority, promotion etc. as two Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 2002 (Arjun Ravi Das v. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Service and Ors., decided on 27.2.2004), [Reported in (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1248 (DB)] and in Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001 (N.K. Tripathi v. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, decided on 13.2.2003) [Reported in (2004) 1UPLBEC 674 (DB)], have taken contrary views. Both the aforesaid cases relate to the same department. As large number of cases have been referred for determining the issue involved, Writ Petition No. 10504 of 2004, Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and Ors., has been taken to be the leading case.2. The Rural Engineering Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All181; 2005(1)AWC811
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri L. D. Rajbhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Director, State Education, Research and Training Board, U. P., Lucknow and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.2. These six writ petitions have been filed by the persons, who claim themselves to be the members of the Denotified tribe (Vimukt Jati), namely, Bhar and Rajbhar, residents of District Azamgarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of their being members of the denotified tribes, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to be treated as members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and are entitled to the benefits of reservation provided for in respect of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates. Accordingly the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the declaration under the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 (as contained in para 4 (a) of the guidelines issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2832; I(2006)BC261
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Negi Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P.K. Bisaria Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 1, Bank, Sri K.M. Asthana Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Ashok Bhatnagar Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Sri S.D. Singh Advocate on behalf of Hina Builders seeking impleadment/intervention.2. M/S Scientific Instrument Company Limited, the petitioner, is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. Proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated by the Bank of India (respondent No. 1) against the petitioner. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur. However, with the creation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Allahabad the said proceedings were transferred to Allahabad and were registered as T.A. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(All.)123
1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the Act, dt. 27th Feb., 2004, passed by the learned CIT, whereby he has cancelled the "regular assessment" order dt. 28th March, 2002 (as had been passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-2, Allahabad), with the direction to the AO "to reframe the assessment order after proper scrutiny and investigation and also after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard on all the issues". 1. Because the learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the AO has failed to make proper enquiry into the facts of the case and on that ground in further holding that the regular assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-11,. Allahabad, is "erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" and in cancelling the assessment with the direction to the AO to reframe the assessment order. 2. Because the assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, as had been passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(All.)489
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2.1. The assessee has listed as many as 11 grounds of appeal in the original memorandum of appeal, which were later on regrouped as per the direction of the Bench. The grounds originally taken and as regrouped read as under : (i) That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions/disallowances while determining undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 : (a) Rs. 1,28,856 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged unaccounted sales outside the books of account vide para 11 of the Order. (b) Rs. 51,50,000 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged income from undisclosed sources vide para 78.2 of the Order. (c) Rs. 44,000 addition in financial year 1994-95 for alleged income from undisclosed sources as the unex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209
1. The petitioner who was elected to the office of Adhyaksha (Chair person), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent State Government removing the petitioner from her office on the basis of alleged charges which the State Government contends to have been proved against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 Act') read with The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the 1997 Rules'). Haunted and hotly pursued by her rival political opponents, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a result of political motivation and is a complete mala fide exercise of power in violation of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(All)511; [2006]280ITR16(All)
A.K. Yog, J.1. Aforementioned six Writ Petitions, under Article 226, Constitution of India with identical factual matrix giving rise to common questions of law, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties have been connected to be heard together and decided by a common judgement.2. For convenience, we refer to the facts of the leading case- viz. Writ Petition No. 1046 of 2005- Mithlesh Kumar Tripati v. The Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 3. Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi and Smt. Seema Tripathi, the two petitioners in the above six writ petitions three each happens to be husband and wife who have been filing their 'returns' with Income Tax Permanent Account No. ABUPT 3610 Q and ACEPT 6474 H.4. As envisaged Under Section 132(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 (called 'the Act') a search was carried out at the office premises of the petitioners at 3B, Sagar Apartments, Tilak Road, New Delhi on 10-10-2002. Separate cases for three Assessment years; viz. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, we...
Tag this Judgment!