Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Both the appeals are being decided together since it involves the same questions of law. For facility, the facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 734 of 2007 is being taken into consideration. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer and exporter. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee filed his return showing nil income claiming deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. The computation of total income was checked and the deduction claimed under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of the Act was scrutinized. The assessing authority, accordingly, computed the total income at nil after allowing deductions under Sections 80-IB and 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer concluded as under: "In response to discussion during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the copies of Balance Shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] arises out of an order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (EC Act)/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur [the tribunal] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 297 of 2010 (Smt. Richa Khare v. Ankit Gupta and others) whereby the Tribunal has rejected the amendment application of the claimants-revisionists under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The essential facts are that late Sanjay Khare, husband of the revisionist no. 1 and father of the revisionist nos. 2 and 3, was a Government employee working on the post of Assistant Nazir (I) at District Court, Shahjahanpur. He met an accident on 25th September, 2008 with a truck bearing Registration No. U.P.27C-5624. He succumbed to his injuries on 30th September, 2008. The revisionists moved a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the Act] which was registered as Motor Accident ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 1. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioners have sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice/advertisement (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No. 3-the examination conducting university, in so far as it seeks to prescribe the maximum age limit of 20 years as an essential criterion for appearing in the Common Law Admission Test -2015 (in short "CLAT-2015). 2. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners had issued notice by its order dated 4.2.2015 to Respondents No. 1 to 3 directing them to file counter affidavit within two weeks, while the petitioner was directed to take steps through speed post within three days. 3. The office has submitted its report dated 23.2.2015, indicating that notices were issued to the Respondents No. 1 to 3 through speed post, fixing 24.2.2015 as the date of hearing but neither acknowledgement nor the undelivered cover has returned after service of notice as yet and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Om Prakash-VII, J. 1.Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 : "This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act since 1982 and is running an educational institution known as Simpkins School at Agra. The petitioner has been enjoying exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) upto the assessment year 1998-99. By Finance Act No.2 of 1998 w.e.f. 1st April, 1999 Section (22) of the Act was omitted and an analogous provision Section 10(23C)(vi) was brought into existence with effect from the same date. Under Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules if the gross receipts are below Rs.1 crore, approval is not required but if the gross receipts exceeds Rs.1 crore, approval is required to be taken under Section 10(23C)(vi). 2. The petitioner contends that even after coming into existence the provision of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, the gross receipts for the assessment year 1998-99 till assessment year 2002-03, being less than Rs.1 crore, the petitioner di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the notice dated 23rd January, 2001 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of publishing a Hindi newspaper Dainik Jagran from various places. For the assessment year 1997-98, the return of income was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the return was picked up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire covering various issues was served upon the assessee. Once such query based in the questionnaire was with regard to the justification of the valuation of the purchase consideration on copyright under the copyright purchase agreement dated 25th January, 1997 where the petitioner company had acquired the copyright of the hindi newspaper "Dainik Jagran" from the owner of the copyright, na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the notices dated 15.12.2004 and 16.12.2004 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner filed his return for the assessment year 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 under Section 139, which was accepted and intimation was given to the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act at the residence of the petitioner as well as at his business premises at Varanasi and at Kolkata. Based on this search and seizure, block assessment order dated 20.12.2004 was passed under Section 158 BC of the Act for the period 01.04.1996 to 03.10.2002 which covered the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. 2. After passing of th...
Tag this Judgment!