Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC446
B.S. Chauhan, J1. The petitioner No. 1, who is the landlord of the land situate at X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad and petitioner No. 2, a builder and developer of the building raised on the said site, have approached this Court assailing the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter called the 'Development Authority') rejecting the application for compounding of unauthorised constructions raised against the sanctioned map/plan over the plot in dispute and issuing a direction to the Zonal Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1973') to take appropriate action against the , petitioners.2. The petitioner No. 1, owner of the aforesaid plot, i.e. X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad, entered into a builder's agreement with M/s. -Tulslanf Construction & Developers Limited on 15.06.2004 for construction of a commercial-cum-residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ1054All
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated June 18, 1991.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that petitioner was engaged as apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in Indian Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Phulpur, District Allahabad under the provisions of Section 4 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The contract of Apprenticeship was executed and signed by the petitioner and the employer as provided under Section 4 of the Act for two years training . It is alleged by the petitioner that the first contract was signed by one Sri N.P. Sinha on behalf of the respondents. Subsequently after the transfer of Sri N.P. Sinha that contract was canceled and the second contract was written and signed by Sri R.R. Rawat, who had succeeded in place of Sri N.P. Sinha as Manager Personnel and Administration (I) in the concern of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3916
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to demolish the commercial building of the petitioner situated at plot No. 22/D, Civil Lines, Allahabad without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without taking any decision by the State Government on the letter dated 26.12.2006 of the Board;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to take decision on the letter dated 26.12.2006 of the Board with further direction to the respondents to decide the application dated 25.11.2006 of the petitioner for compounding and regularizing the construction made by the petitioner on plot No. 22/D, Civil Lines, Allahabad.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner purchased the plot No. 22/D Civil Lines, Allahabad on 21st March, 2005 and submitted map/plan for constructing the commercial b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2006All308; 2006(2)AWC1830
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant case relates to the grant of permits and/or counter-signatures increasing the number of trips of vehicles on inter-State routes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, which are necessary to explain the controversy involved herein, are stated in brief.2. Petitioner has a permanent stage carriage permit on inter-State route, Jhansi-Mahoba via Naugaon, a route which runs to 161 Kms., and out of which, 97 Kms. falls within the State of U.P. and 64 Kms. falls within the State of Madhya Pradesh. There is a reciprocal agreement between the States of U.P. and Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Act, providing the ceiling of permits on this route, that is, four trips for the operators of U.P., and accordingly, the Transport Authority in U.P. has granted three permits. The vehicles have four single trips per day on the route in rotation. Petitioner filed an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)64ITD134(All.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 are consolidated as these contain common issues. The assessee modified the original grounds of appeal which are taken into consideration for deciding the appeals for assessment year 1986-87 and assessment year 1988-89.2. The first issue common to both the assessment years relates to taxability of entertainment tax realised by the assessee. While in assessment year 1986-87 the same amounted to Rs. 1,24,990, in assessment year 1988-89 it was shown at Rs. 15,36,120. Shri C. S. Jain, the learned AR submitted that the assessee runs a cinema under the name and style of Shubhra Theatre at Mahuabagh, Ghazipur. It collected entertainment tax as payable to the concerned State Authority. Under a scheme as floated by the U.P. Government, any entrepreneur who had built a permanent structure for exhibiting film was to be allowed a grant in aid for three years. This was linked with the entertainment tax. While in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)185CTR(All)136; [2003]264ITR646(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act challenging the order dt. 15th Oct., 1999, of the Tribunal, Allahabad. This appeal and connected appeals ITA Nos. 72 of 2003, 36 of 2000, 38 of 2000, 40 of 2000, 154 of 2000 and 155 of 2000 are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel for the Department, and Shri Percy Pardiwalla and Shri S.D. Singh for the respondents.3. We have carefully perused the record. The respondent-company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. In the order of the CIT(A) in ITA No. 154 of 2000, it is mentioned that as per the memorandum of association the objects for which the company was established are :'1. To establish, promote, conduct, manage, maintain, improve, regulate, run, work and control the different types of schemes for encouraging the habit of savings and wise economy amongst the public on scientific, practical lines and also help men, women and children...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(238)ELT554(All)
Sushil Harkauli and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the notice dated 23.05.2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Collector (Collection) Trade Tax, Kanpur to the petitioner No. 2, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents not to realise any amount of trade tax from the petitioners till finalization of winding up proceedings pending before the respondents authorities.2. The petitioner No. 1, M/s Meekin Transmission Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Automotive Gears. Initially it was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 31.03.1983 and was converted in a Public Limited Company subsequently. In 1991 it became a sick unit and made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR909]; (1994)IILLJ1087All
R.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. In the aforesaid three writ petitions counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between petitioners and contesting respondent No. 2. The State though accepted notice long back but as usual no counter affidavit has been filed in any of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petitions may be decided finally at this stage. In all the writ petitions common questions of law and fact are involved and they may be conveniently decided by a common judgment.2. Petitioners are employees of Modipon Fibres Company, Modinagar, which is a division of M/s. Modipon Limited, Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. They were employed as clerks in the establishment. By the impugned orders dated May 13, 1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 13116 of 1993 and 18118 of 1993 and May 12, 1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18117 of 1993, their services have been terminated under Clause 19(a) (bb) of the Certified Standing Orders wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ1186All
ORDERM.L. Bhat, J.1. The award of the Labour Court II, Kanpur dated November 29, 1990 is prayed to be quashed in this petition. The said award has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 after recognising him as a workman and has also directed to regularise his services from December 17, 1985. He is entitled to get back wages also. A reference seems to have been made to the Labour Court to consider whether the termination of the service of the respondent No. 2 with effect form November 5, 1983 was proper and legal. If the termination is not treated proper and legal, what is the relief available to him? On proof of the claim of the respondent No. 2, was he entitled to work as Machine Operator and get wages of the said post and could he be regularised on the said post, if so, from which date and on what terms?2. From the record it is revealed that the respondent No. 2 was enrolled as an apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act of 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1961') on No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)13VST403(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 30th May, 1996 relating to the assessment year 1987-88.2. On the basis of the information that the assessee opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') has received certain amount from M/S IFFCO, Phulpur. Allahabad and M/S BPCL, Naini, Allahabad towards hire charges, assessment proceedings have been initiated. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the assessee filed the copies of the agreement and explained that in pursuance of the agreement only buses were provided to M/S IFFCO, Phulpur, Allahabad and M/S BPCL. Naini, Allahabad for the transportation of their employees from their residence to the factory and from factory to the residence and for which charges were stipulated. It was submitted that the possession of the vehicle was always with him and the entire expenses, namely, diesel charges, salary of d...
Tag this Judgment!