Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The present appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1993-94. Since the tax effect was more than Rs.2 lacs, the appeal was presented on 24th December, 2004 on the basis of Instruction No.1979 dated 27th March, 2000. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee on the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal. Reliance was placed on Section 268A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the Instructions No.3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the CBDT) laying down the monetary limits for regulating the filing of the appeals. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that under the Instructions No.3 of 2011, the monetary limit for filing an appeal by the Department was Rs.10 lacs, whereas the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs.10 lacs and, therefore, the appeal should be dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.2.2015 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad in Case No.E.C.A. 70 of 2013, Rais Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others. Heard Shri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned judgment and order have been assailed on the grounds that (i) there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent no.2/owner of the vehicle; (ii) at the relevant time the deceased had no valid driving licence. He has been erroneously held to be a driver, which the law does not permit; (iii) accident, wherein the deceased died, not arose out of the use of the said vehicle and (iv) accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased, had no nexus with his duty as employee, therefore, the death is not in the course of the employment. Before appreciating these grounds, we would like briefly to place on record the facts of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State as also the DGC (Criminal), Allahabad summoned by the Court vide order 23.5.2013. 2. This revision challenges the order dated 13.3.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 9, Allahabad in S. T. No. 73 of 2009 State Versus Anand Pasi and others u/s 302 IPC P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad whereby after closure of arguments of the defence, allowing the application of the prosecution permission has been accorded to put the DNA report paper no. 32-A/2 to 32-A/10 to the revisionist in his additional statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. 3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the DNA report could not be admitted in evidence without its formal proof as required under the law unless it is demonstrated that the same could be considered in view of Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P. C., therefore, the accused cannot be put to explain the same. 4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the reference order dated 27.12.2012 issued under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act whereby the State Government has referred a dispute to the labour court for adjudication. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workers went on a strike on 2nd June, 1983. Conciliation proceedings were initiated between the labour force and the management and, in these conciliation proceedings, the workers were directed to report for duty by 18th August, 1983. This date was subsequently extended till 1st September, 1983. The present respondents nos. 3 to 18 apparently did not report for duty, and eventually, the management took a decision terminating their service with effect from 09th September, 1983. These 18 workers along with some others raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity and legality of the order of their termination. The dispute was referred to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WE have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, and Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred against the impugned award dated 31.1.2004 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 135 of 1999 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kheri. 2. DECEASED Kashmir Singh was a truck driver bearing no. UP 65- H/0691. On 3.6.1999 he was coming from Madhya Pradesh after loading iron. When he reached near town Kablapur, stopped the truck and came down from the truck and was checking the tyre after parking on roadside. An unknown vehicle came in a rash and negligent way and collided with deceased Kashmir Singh, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot on 13.6.1999 at 3.45 pm near Kablapur. An FIR was lodged and dependent of the deceased approach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. S. Mishra, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed, challenging the detention of the petitioner in Central Jail, Naini, with the prayer to declare the custody of the petitioner at Central Jail, Naini, illegal and unconstitutional and to set him at liberty, forthwith. The solitary confinement during his judicial custody has also been challenged. The petitioner is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.327 of 2010, under Section 302, 307, 427, 429, 120-B IPC and Section 3/5 Explosive Substance Act and Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahbad at Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad. The first information report was lodged by informant Kamal Kumar on 12.7.2010. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was innocent and he was not involved in the aforesaid criminal case. Further case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Anurag Pandey holding brief of Sri D.V. Jaiswal learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. This petition has been filed assailing the appellate order passed by the Respondent No.12 Collector, Rampur dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and it also assails the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by the respondent No.11 Sub Divisional Officer, Sahabad district Rampur whereby the contesting respondent nos. 1 to 10 have been permitted to run a market over their bhumidhari land under Section 142 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950. 3. The background of the case is that the order was passed in favour of contesting respondents dated 8.5.1992 and a copy of the said order has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit dated 21.12.2001. A perusal of the said order demonstrates that the contesting respondents have been allowed to hold a market over their bhumidhari land situated in Village Sahabad on every Tuesday and Saturday. This order accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The First Appeal From Order arises out of Claim Petition No. 33 of 2002 (Smt. Alimunnishan & 8 Ors. v. Om Prakash & Anr.) filed on account of death of Naqvi Ahmad in the accident that had taken place on 17th November, 2001 with Truck No. U.P.44-A/2098 owned by Om Prakash Singh. 2. The said Claim Petition No. 33 of 2002 was filed by Smt. Alimunnishan & 8 Ors. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments that the deceased Naqvi Ahmad was the sole bread earner of the family; on 17th November, 2001 he went to Sultanpur for business purposes but Truck bearing No. U.P.44-A/2098 which was being negligently driven by the driver hit the husband of Smt. Alimunnishan as a result of which he and many others died and many were injured; the husband of the petitioner No. 1 used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month from the business; First Information Report could not be lodged in time since medical treatment was immediately required to be provided to the injured and, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devendra Kumar Arora, J.1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 11.7.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Rae Bareli, in Claim Petition No. 198 of 2006, Munni Devi and Ors. v. Babu Lal @ Barati and Ors.2. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the record of the appeal, are that husband of the appellant No. 1, Munni Devi, namely, Raju Chaurasia while he was going to have feast at the house of one Deshraj Yadav, met with a fatal accident with a motorcycle No. U. P. 33K/3453 in the evening of 8th July, 2006 in front of the house of E. D. situated in the campus of Dariya Mill. Raju Chaurasia succumbed to injuries on the spot. The said motorcycle was being driven by respondent No. 1 Babu Lal @ Barati Lal very rashly and negligently causing death of Raju Chaurasia. First Information Report of the said accident was lodged by brother of the deceased Raju Chaurasia, namely, Dileep Chaurasia at police station Bhad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
V.K. Shukla, J.1. In the present writ petition, subject matter of challenge is the order passed in summary court martial proceeding, wherein sentence has been awarded to the petitioner to serve rigorous imprisonment for six months and to be dismissed from service. Against the said order in question, petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed on 18.05.1989 by mentioning that the same lacks substance. At the said juncture present writ petition has been filed before this Court on 07.03.1990.2. On 07.12.2003 in the absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner, present writ petition was dismissed, and thereafter an application was moved for recall the said order. Said application has been allowed on 09.12.2009, and thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up.3. On the matter being taken up today, Sri Sunit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that this Court should take note of the change in the legal provision as has been introduced under ...
Tag this Judgment!