Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1545
1. The present writ petition has been filed by one Major Jasbinder Singh Bala claiming certain reliefs which arise out of the judgment dated 29.4.2002 in L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His claim is that while deciding the issue of apportionment of the compensation under Section 30, apportionment has wrongly been made in favour Ram and Gajraj respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, depriving him from getting compensation after due apportionment. He has therefore made the following prayers 1 to 4: i, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgment dated 29.4.2002 in L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs. 22,74,966.28 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2006All115
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner (defendant) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 26-10-2002 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1998.2. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Bazar Gher Munaf, Amroha, District Moradabad, 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 (plaintiff- landlord) filed a Suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages etc. against the petitioner (defendant) in respect of the disputed shop.4. It was, inter-alia, alleged by the respondent (plaintiff-landlord) in the said Suit that the disputed shop was the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC992
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.1. The short basic issue in all these appeals is whether the Aligarh Muslim University is a minority Institution. The point arises because suddenly some eighty five years after incorporation, they chose for the first time to reserve a Muslim quota, by way of a 50% reservation of post-graduate course seats meant for qualified MBBS doctors. The judgment under appeal before us has been delivered by an Hon'ble Single Judge of our Court on the 4th of October, 2005. Both sides, to be more accurate, all parties, felt aggrieved, and came up in appeal. The appeals will all be disposed of by this common order.2. On the one side, who spoke first were, the Aligarh Muslim University, represented by Mr. S.S. Ray, leading Dr. Dhawan, the Union of India and the learned Attorney General on whose behalf Mr. Gopal Subramaniam addressed us, two individuals one of whom is a member of the Court of the University, which is its administrative body, the Minority Commission whose case was put...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2829
Amitava Lala, J.1. This case is made out basically for conversion of leasehold 'nazul' land to freehold land along with various other reliefs. Therefore, let us first of all know what is 'nazul'?' 'Nazul' means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. It means properties i.e., land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated or lapsed to the Government. In further, in absence of appropriate heir, the appropriate State or the Government of India in an appropriate case became the owner of the land. Article 296 of the Constitution of India speaks about the property accruing by escheat or lapse or as an bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner.2. Originally the writ petition was filed by the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC3146
Amitava Lala, J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions are Identically placed and analogously heard, therefore, connected for the purpose of disposal by this solitary judgment, which will govern all the matters.2. In the prime writ petition vires of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 (hereinafter called as the Rules) is under challenge. But the basic prayers in all the writ petitions are to quash the First Information Report (hereinafter called as F.I.R.) and not to arrest the petitioners on account of alleged theft of electricity. The contention of the petitioners is that the police has no power to arrest them without any cognizance to be taken up by the appropriate court under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to us, these are rarest of the rare cases where the Court is genuinely called upon to interfere with the cause of arrest.3. Since the vires of the Central Rules under the Act is challenged, the Court was pleased to issue n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)10VST282(All)
A.K. Yog, J.Background in brief1. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging constitutional validity of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 (referred as 'the Act') on the ground that tax levied under it was not 'compensatory' and hence violative of Articles 301 and 304, Constitution of India (called 'the Constitution') relying upon the apex court judgments in the case of Atia-bari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232 and Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1962 SC 1406 (7 Judges) wherein apex court, dealing with the case of 'motor vehicles', observed:.it seems to us that a working test for deciding whether a tax is compensatory or not is to enquire whether the trades people are having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of their business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities....2. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that 'tax' levied as 'entry tax' under the Act, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2010]187TAXMAN220(All)
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against the order dated 18-12-1998 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Allahabad in ITA No. 1906 (All.)/1990 for the assessment year 1988-89. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows.2. The assessee respondent received a lottery/prize money from Directorate of Lotteries, Government of Sikkim out of which a sum of Rs. 8,088 was deducted as tax at source. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer, Ward 'B', Allahabad that she had received a lottery prize to the tune of Rs. 90,000. She claimed exemption on the aforestated amount of Rs. 90,000 under Section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act. The said claim was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and he added back the income from lottery as income in the hands of the assessee. The said order was confirmed by the order dated 21-5-1990 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Allahabad in Appeal No. 23/Ward 4/All./89-90. In further appeal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC1002
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri May auk Agrawal and Sri Krishna Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioners, Sri H.P. Dube, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4.2. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage under the Rides of the Court.3. The petitioners, M/s Maa Vind Vasini Industries and another have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the demand notice issued for the month of May, 2007 and also the letters dated 24.02.2007 and 05.05.2007 issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigarh Ltd. Mohaddipur, Gorakhpur respectively and have sought a writ of certiorari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3574
Pradeep Kant, J.1. Following two questions arise for determination In the present writ petition:(1) Whether the information disclosing the names of the persons including address and amount, who have received more than Rs. 1 lac from the Chief Minister Discretionary Fund, can be given to the information seeker or it is an information, which stands exempted under Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act.(2) Whether the Chief Information Commissioner while considering the complaints under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Is competent only to award the prescribed punishment, in case of failure of information being given as per the provisions of the Act or while dealing with the said complaints, any direction can also be issued for furnishing the information which has not been provided, though it is not found to be exempted under the provisions of the Act.2. Right to Information Act. 2005 (referred to as the 'R.T.I. Act') enacted by the Parliament, received assent of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2619
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the impugned detention order dated 6-12-2007 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition)' passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (Respondent No. 2), detaining petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the N.S. Act'), and further, for directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents.3. From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition as also in the Counter Affidavits, the facts as stated here-in-after, emerge.4. It appears that a First Information Report was lodged by one Raj an Kumar Jaiswal on 22-9-2007 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 21-9-2007. The said First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No. 1624 of 2007, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code and ...
Tag this Judgment!