Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-20-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)AWC671; (2001)1UPLBEC741
ORDERV. M. Sahai, J.1. In this petition filed by a teacher appointed to short-term vacancy, one of the questions that arises for consideration is whatis the effect of rescission of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (in brief Second Order) by insertion of Section 33E in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (in brief the Act).2. Maharshi Durbasa Inter College, Kakara Dubawal, Allahabad (in brief institution) is a recognised and aided institution. Sri Yaduraj Singh an Assistant Teacher L.T. grade took medical leave from 1.1.1998 to 30.6.1998. The management on 1.1.1998 intimated the District Inspector of Schools (in brief D.I.O.S.) to fill the short-term vacancy. This letter does not appear to have been received by the D.I.O.S. The management notified the vacancy on 7.1.1998 on the notice board and on the same day advertisement was published in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-13-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2580
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the decree passed by the trial court for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order of the revisional court dismissing the revision against the said Judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of the shop in question of which the petitioner is tenant. He filed Suit No. 1268 of 1968 against the petitioner in the Court of Judge Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1987 and was - not governed by the provisions of U. P. (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1947. The petitioner had illegally sublet the accommodation to the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. His tenancy was terminated by a notice which was served upon him on 7.10.1976 but inspite of service of notice he did not vacate the shop. The petitioner filed written statement and alleged that he did not sublet the accommodation or committed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1522
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The core question in the petition is as to whether the disputed accommodation is vacant or not.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that one Ram Chandra Mishra was the tenant of a portion of the disputed house No. 3A, 274, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. He was selected for the post of store and purchase officer in the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal. in the year 1964. He shifted to Karnal with his entire family from the disputed house. After him, it was occupied by his elder brother, R. A. Mishra. In the year 1965 Sri R. A. Mtshra died and after his death the petitioner, his son. continued to occupy the same along with his younger brother, Sunil Kumar Mishra.3. The landlords of the house in question sold it on 10.8.1990 by executing three separate sale deeds, one in favour of Smt. Usha Rani Mishra. the wife of the husband of his younger brother. Sunil Kumar Mishra : the second to Rajiv Prakash. respondent No. 2 and the third to Mrs. Neeta Awasthi. The dispute in the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : 2000(4)AWC2822
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. By means or this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who happen to be tenants of house and shop, i.e., 29, Mohalla Subhash Ganj, Jhansi, (for short 'the building in question'), pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorart quashing the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1999 whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 2, Judge Small Cause Courts, was decreed, the judgment and order dated 10.2.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was dismissed by the revisional court (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 14.2.2000 whereby the review application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the revisional court.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, as set out in the pleadings of parties (writ petition and counter-affidavit) and other material on the record, in brief, are that the respondent No. 3 file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-16-2000
Reported in : (2002)77TTJ(All)282
ORDERBy the BenchIn these four appeals the assessee has, in addition to challenging the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to various additions and findings on merits including as to whether income included in assessee's assessments did belong to assessee or the Hindu undivided family styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, has challenged the very validity of initiation of the proceeding under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by way of following grounds.Ground No. 1.1Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under section 147 and the assessment made thereunder.Ground No. 1.2Because there existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief' that as far as the appellant was concerned, his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, and consequently the initiation of proceedings thereunder as also the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-16-2000
1. In these four appeals the assessee has, in addition to challenging the consolidated order of the CIT(A) with respect to various additions and findings on merits including as to whether income included in assessee's assessments did belong to assessee or the HUF styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, has challenged the very validity of initiation of the proceeding under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by way of following grounds.Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under Section 147 and the assessment made thereunder.Because there existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief that as far as the appellant was concerned, his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and consequently the initiation of proceedings thereunder as also the assessment made in pursuance thereof are void ab initio.2. The grounds on merits, except nature and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-05-2000
Reported in : (2000)3UPLBEC2553
1. By the Court.-Number of cases were referred to this Larger Bench. Few of them have already been disposed of and rest writ petitions, mentioned above, having similar facts and questions of law to be determined were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, by the reference to the Larger Bench no specific question was referred for determination.2. In Writ Petition No. 4285 (MB) of 1999 filed on behalf of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association a direction has been sought to declare the impugned Ordinance No. 17 of 1999 as ultra vires by which Section 4(1) has been substituted in place of Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), further Section 5(5-C) has been added to the Act, with the prayer to declare Section 5(5-B) of the Act as ultra vires. It has been further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to modify the Act strictly in accordance wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-11-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1688
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Ballia.2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, which are relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made in respect of village Chchitauni Ander, Pargana Lakhneshwar, district Ballia in the year 1960. A compromise was filed between the parties on 26.4.1968 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9 of the Act with regard to khata Nos. 34 and 84 in which it was stated that the plots recorded under the above khatas are ancestral property and the petitioner had 1/4 share. The compromise was given effect to by order of the Assistant ConsolidationOfficer dated 6.7.1968 and petitioner was recorded as co-tenant in the khata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-10-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2054
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority, respondent No. 3, whereby the appeal was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was tenant in the disputed premises No. 16/98 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 on 6th March, 1965, whereby it was agreed that the petitioner will give to respondent No. 1 one shop after its construction having floor area of about 1113 sq. ft. at monthly rent of Rs. 250 after the tenant vacates the premises under its occupation. It was further agreed that the tenancy of respondent No. 1 shall continue in respect of such newly constructed shop without any break and it shall be entitled to all rights that were available to a tenant of any pre-1951 c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1761; (2000)2UPLBEC1270
Palok Basu, J.1. This bunch of 73 cases, raises important question of law which may be having far reaching consequences, therefore, more than sufficient time was provided to the learned counsel for the parties to ventilate their grievances and respective arguments which all of them have done with great ability.2. On February 24, 1997. 'Shaktinagar Special Area Development Authority (Cess on Mineral Rights) Rules, 1997' (hereinafter referred to as the Cess Rules) having been promulgated through publication in the U. P. Gazette, all the petitioners seem to have been asked to pay Cess in accordance with the Cess Rules and it appears that by the notice of demand the amount so calculated was demanded and the petitioners having not paid the Cess, the recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue have commenced and each one of the petitioners has rushed tothis Court challenging those recovery proceedings and the citations issued by the recovering authorities for attempting to collect the sa...
Tag this Judgment!