Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All382
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution' of India by Messrs. Gai Chhap Biri Depot through Shiyam Sunder Agrawal, and also by Shiyam Sunder Agrawal in his personal capacity, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Azamgarh, respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal against the assessment of circumstances and property tax on the petitioners was in substance dismissed. A request was also made that the taxes already paid by the petitioners be ordered to be refunded to them.2. Shiyam Sunder Agrawal is one of the four proprietors of an unregistered firm by the name of Gai Chhap Biri Depot at Belasia, Azamgarh. The District Board of Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, had assessed circumstances and property tax amounting to Rs. 150/- on the firm Gai Chhap Biri Depot for the year 1953-54 and raised the assessment to Rs. 500/- per year for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1967All405; [1967]37CompCas773(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This special appeal by leave granted by Bishambhar Dayal, J. is directed against his judgment dated 31-12-1959 dismissing with costs Second Appeal No. 485 of 1952, filed by the appellants, Shanker Lal and Pyare Lal, sons of one Lala Kundan Lal Agarwal.The facts giving rise to this special appeal in short are:In the City of Saharanpur lies the disputed plot (plot bearing Khasra No. 766 of Khewat No. 171). This plot belonged to Hulas Chand and Bilas Chand. In May 1930 these persons granted a permanent lease of this plot to the Patel Mills Ltd., who were to pay Rs. 75/- per year as rent. In the terms of the lease it was provided that the lease could use it for any purpose including the construction of building and that it would not be liable for ejectment, except that in the case of non-payment of rent for three consecutive years, the lease could be forfeited.On 1st November 1932 Hulas Chand and Bilas Chand sold their rights in the plot in dispute to Budh Sen and Jia L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1023
R.B. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to give appointment on compassionate ground under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants ofGovernment Servant (Dying-in-Hamess) Rules, 1974 (known as 'Rule 1974' hereinafter) in place of her husband treating to have been died in the course of service.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State.3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner whose date of birth was 12.10.1966, was appointed as Constable in Civil Police, Jhansi in 1988. He took casual leave on 29.10.1988 for three days but he did not return thereafter. An F.I.R. was lodged on 17.3.1989 on behalf of the father-in-law of the petitioner and after investigation, a final report was submitted on 26.12.1990 wherein the petitioner's husband Balendra Prasad Mishra had been declared missing. The petitioner was legally dependent being wife of Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1984All234
H.N. Seth, J.1. A Scheme known as Sikandara Grihsthan Evam Sarak Yojna, Agra was notified under Section 28(1) of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) on 4th April, 1970. In due course the said notification was followed by a notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam published in the U. P. Gazette dated 28th June, 1980.2. The two petitioners, namely Doctors' Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and Ram Babu Gupta filed the present petition on 30th April. 1981 and questioned the authority of the Board constituted under the Adhiniyam to, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification, acquire their rights in respect of certain Bhumidhari plots mentioned in paragraph '2' of the petition. They submitted that in view of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam. which lays down that any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)94CTR(All)100; [1991]188ITR470(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that it was mandatory on the part of the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee failed to claim such deduction in the returns filed for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73 or during the course of the assessment proceedings ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that there was an obvious mistake which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1969-70 to 1972-73. On the basis of the returns filed by the assessee, assessments were made for all these four years on August 3, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC2836
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 3.7.1997 published on 16.8.1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner-Bank is the Regional Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Bank Act. The terms and conditions of the employment of the Bank are Government in accordance with the Bank Services Regulations and the guidelines issued by the Government of India and the Reserv Bank of India.3. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 was engaged as a part-time daily worker in Etawah Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raja Ka Bagh Branch, Etawah, for doing odd jobs as and when exigency of work required. He was terminated from service with effect from 2.4.1987 and raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as C.G.I.T.4. The case of the Bank is that respondent No. 2 never worked for 240...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1982)31CTR(All)224; [1983]142ITR509(All); [1983]12TAXMAN69(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Brijraman Das & Sons, Varanasi, stated the case and has referred the following question in respect of assessment year 1970-71, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 15,680 was justified under Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and further whether the expenses on Ganeshji ki Puja amounting to Rs. 958 could also be disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act itself ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in Banarsi goods under the name and style of M/s. Brijraman Das & Sons at Sakshi Vinayak, Varanasi. The accounting year of the assessee ended on Diwali Sambat 2026 corresponding to 8th November, 1969. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed deduction of business expenses amounting to Rs. 94,665. This claim included the expenditure of Rs. 20,6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1966All12
S.K. Verma, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred three questions for answers by a larger Bench. This Full Bench has been constituted for that purpose. The three questions referred are these;--1. Whether Rule 115 of the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act is ultra vires the powers of the Government in so far as it authorises the reference of a dispute between the Society or its committee and any officer of the society to the Registrar to be decided by the Registrar himself or by an arbitrator nominated by the Registrar 2. In case the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the expression 'officer' must ne construed as including a past officer ? 3. If so, whether past officer must be construed as referring only to a person who was an officer of the society until the dispute arose, but had ceased to be an officer before the dispute was referred by the society, or also to a person who was an officer at the time business of the society which gave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All147
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, C. J.1. The fate of this casc turms on the interpretation of the provisions made in the Informalion Bulletin of University entrance Test 1995-96 issued by the Banaras Hindu University regarding eligibility qualifications for admission in three year M.C.A. of computer centre under the Banaras Hindu University Varanasi and para 16 regarding reservation/ weightage and interaction of such provisions with other provisions in the Information Bulletin.2. The Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (B.H.U. for short) through its Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Coordinator Computer Centre filed this Special Appeal challenging the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4355 of1996 in which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Anil Kumar Rai and ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed admission on the basis of his result in the entrance examination for the category of candidates coming within the purview of para 16(b) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All117
Waliullah, J.1. This is an application for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Custodian dated 27-2-1952 as well as the order of the Custodian General dated 4-7-1952. There are some other reliefs claimed in the application but the argument of the learned counsel before us has been confined to the question whether or not this is a fit case for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders mentioned above. There is an affidavit filed in support of the application. Mr. Gaur, the learned counsel for the applicants, has strenuously contended that it is a fit case in which this Court should issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Additional Custodian as well as that of the Custodian General mentioned above. The learned counsel has pressed us hard to accept his contention that in this case his clients were not tenants of certain sir land at all, but were rather holding the plots actually in their possession as sajhidars and that...
Tag this Judgment!