Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All257
Malik, C.J.1. These applications have been filed on behalf of certain persons who own motor buses and carry passengers for hire on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. The applicants want appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applications can be grouped according to the routes over which the transport buses of the various bus-owners or transport companies were running.2. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 4 to 7, 71 to 98 and 133 to 140 of 1950 relate to the route Khurja-Bulandshahr-Delhi. The applicants in these cases are represented by Mr. Gopal Swarup Pathak. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 8 to 70 of 1950 relate to Meerut-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are also represented by Mr. Pathak.3. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 99, 100, 104 to 116 of 1950 relate to Garhmukteshwar-Hapur-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are represented by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami and Mr. S.B. L. Gour.4. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 1950 relate to buses running on the Mathura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1974All110
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. On January 25, 1972, Smt. Kamlesh Asthana (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') filed, in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband Sri Surendra Kumar Asthana, the applicant in this revision. At that time and even now the husband is working and residing in Tehran (Iran). After notices were served on the husband, he on March 24, 1972, put in appearance under protest. On March 25, 1972, he filed an application stating that he was a foreign national and was not domiciled in any territory to which the Act extended and that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts. He asked for time for filing written statement and prayed that in the mean time the question of jurisdiction be determined. Immediately thereafter on March 28, 1972, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying that a pendente lite monthly alimony or monthly maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1060
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The only question involved in this writ petition is, 'whether any rights are conferred on Khudkast holder under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Z. A. Act) Act, whose land was submerged in a river on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting.'The Facts 2. The petitioners filed a suit on 15.5.1965 for declaration that they are bhumidhar of the plots mentioned in list A of the plaint. List A included four plots namely plot No. 18/13/1, 8/24, 8/25 and 8/39. There is a list B also. It includes 67 plots. However, it is not clear as to why these plots were mentioned as no relief is claimed in respect of plots of list B. In this writ petition, I am also concerned with plots of list 'A' only. In substance the plaint allegations are that:* The petitioners were Khudkast holder of the plots in list 'A'.* The plots submerged in the river Ganges sometime after 1356 F and re-emerged in 1372 F.* The petitioners are deemed to be Khudkast holde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1974All98
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. One Qutub Uddin Ahmad was owner of certain houses in Sabzi Mandi, Allahabad. As a result of his leaving India for Pakistan the aforesaid houses were declared to be evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXI of 1950). Qutub Uddin Ahmad subsequently died in Pakistan. The respondents claiming to be his heirs made an application to the Central Government for restoration of the property in question to them under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The said application was, however, dismissed on 22nd March. 1956. A notification had, in the meantime, been published in the gazette of India dated 4th June, 1955 notifying the property aforesaid to have been acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act XLIV of 1954). Subsequently, it appears that the Settlement Commissioner passed an order declaring that the notification aforesaid did not affect the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All551
Mootham, C.J. 1. These are two appeals from an order of a learned Judge dated the 1st, January, 1960, Sri Ram Audh Misra, the first appellant in Appeal No. 11, held a permit permitting him to ply a stage carriage on the Deoria-Lar route, and Sri. Mohammad Ismail and Sri Mahabir Prasad, the second and third appellants in that appeal, were the holders of permits permitting them to ply on the Siswabazar-ThuthibarI route. Schemes under Chap. IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act were prepared, whereunder these two routes were to be operated exclusively by a state transport undertaking; and in due course the schemes were approved and the two routes became notified, routes. The schemes involved the displacement of the three appellants, arid provision was made in the schemes for the payment to them of compensation therefor. Although the schemes made no provision for the appellants being offered alternative routes, the Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur, offered permits to the three appellants pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1978All323
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. I had the advantage of perusing the opinions written by my learned brothers and after the exhaustive discussion of the subject in those two elaborate judgments It has become conveniently feasible for me to record my own views in the case with considerable brevity. In my opinion the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs. I would only like to add with respect that though I agree with the ultimate conclusions of my learned brothers I am unable to agree with the opinion of Agrawal, J. on only one aspect of the case, namely, that respondents Nos, 4 to 9 had acquired the rights of hereditary tenants. I would rather subscribe to the contrary opinion of Mehrotra, J. and Gopi Nath, J, (in his referring order). 2. In a nutshell the dispute in this case arose between the petitioner who was a sub-tenant Inducted by the Zamin-! dar after obtaining a decree for ejectment under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and respondents Nos. 4 to 9' who were originally trespas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(All)131; [1980]123ITR911(All); [1980]4TAXMAN1(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the question referred for opinion is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction of penalty of Rs. 50,651 in assessment year 1967-68 and Rs. 67,801 in assessment year 1968-69 '2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cloth. It follows the calendar year as its year of account. During the years under consideration, the assessee was recognised as a registered user of trade mark No. 100387 (Sanforized) of M/s. Cluett Peabody & Company by the Government of India, vide Trade Mark Registry letter No. P.R. (RU-Sanforized)/2400 dated 26th November, 1962. One of the conditions laid down for the use of the aforesaid trade mark was the export of a certain percentage of sanforized fabrics manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1979All93
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The petitioner, Messrs Sohan Lal, carries on the business of dealing in gold ornaments in the city of Deoria. He holds gold dealer's licence No. 195-Gold/63. For 1975 his application for renewal of the licence was presented in time. He was, however, served with a notice to show cause why his application for renewal should not be rejected in view of the fact that the transactions made by him in 1974 were below the limit prescribed under Rule 3 (ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner submitted an explanation which was that he was not able to do his business properly in 1974 on account of drought. That explanation did not find favour with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2, who was the licensing authority and his application for renewal was rejected by an order dated 22-2-1975.The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order which as well was dismissed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3733
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of a Lieutenant Colonel of the Indian Army residing in Jankipuram locality of the capital of the State, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved of the encroachment of roads and traffic mismanagement in the cities of the State of U.P. including Lucknow.2. The submission is that on account of inaction on the part of the State during peak hours, congestion takes place in the markets as well as densely-populated areas of the city of Lucknow. The attention of this Court has been drawn to other cities of the State of U.P., particularly the 'A' Class cities with the submission that the State has failed to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations to provide quality of life i.e. fundamental in nature, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.3. It has been argued by the petitioner's counsel that on account of increase of population in the urban area, it is expecte...
Tag this Judgment!