Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-22-2004
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)620; [2006]280ITR372(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:-'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been in error in holding that the assessee, a Development Officer, was entitled to 40% expenses in relation to incentive bonus to the tune of Rs. 4,569/-, Rs. 14,558/- and Rs. 19,300/- for the three years under reference respectively, received by him over and above his salary from the Corporation?'2. The reference relates to the Assessment Years 1980-81 to 1982-83.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The respondent assessee was a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During the assessment years in question he received certain incentive bonus from the Corporation amounting to Rs. 4,569/-, Rs. 14,558/- and Rs. 19,300/- respectively, in addition to his s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC621
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order, dated 7.10.2002, of a learned Judge, by which the petition filed by the respondent has been allowed only on the ground that he had not been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling his appointment/training on the post of Constable.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellants issued an advertisement advertising 5225 vacancies of Constables in Civil Police. The petitioner-respondent applied in pursuance of the same. His candidature was considered and he was selected. However, he was not sent for training on the ground that he was not eligible to be selected in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes for the reason that he belonged to the Meena community, which is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan, but not in State of Uttar Pradesh. Feeling aggrieved, he filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-16-2004
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2318; 2005(1)ESC637; (2005)2UPLBEC1232
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation in September, 1991. In the year 2000, the respondent No. 5, was posted as Branch Manager of the Moradabad branch where the petitioner was working. The petitioner claims that he was harassed by the said Branch Manager, regarding which he had made several complaints. According to him, he was not being informed of the work assigned to him; his work table was time and again shifted from one place to another; his general/medical leave was not being sanctioned; certain financial irregularities were also being committed in the Branch Office, besides many other grievances which he had repeatedly complained of. A notice had been given to the petitioner on 2.9.2000 to explain as to why his medical leave should not be refused, to which he filed his reply. By a detailed memorandum of grievances submitted on 21.9.2000 the petitioner had again pointed out the irregularities committed in the office, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-30-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC123; 2005(3)AWC2234
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition-tenant challenges the order passed by the trial Court whereby the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-tenant preferred a revision under Section 25 of the U.P. Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which was dismissed by the revisional Court affirming the order of the trial Court.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit after determining the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question, which is non-residential accommodation at the rent of Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 50/- per month as electricity charges. Since the tenant has not paid the rent with effect from 5.3.1996, his tenancy has been terminated by notice dated 4.9.1998. Thereafter the suit was filed. It has been specifically pleaded that the building in which the accommodation in question i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-30-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC410; (2005)2UPLBEC1149
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.5.1999 wherein the following direction has been issued :'The authorities are directed to absorb and appoint the petitioners as Clerk on regular basis against any existing substantive vacancy or vacancies which may occur in near future. The appointment against the existing vacancies shall be made within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the appropriate authority'.2. The operation of the aforesaid judgment and order was stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated 23.12.1999.3. It has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the Court cannot take the task of the statutory authorities and issue the direction to appoint/absorb an employee. At the most, direction could have been issued to consider the case for absorption.4. On the contrary, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, that the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-02-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC2395
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 28.10.1987 and 24.11.1987 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 declaring vacancy in respect of the shop in question. The petitioners are the sitting tenant and the shop in question was let out to their father about more than forty five years by the father of respondent No. 3, the landlord. The respondent No. 3, the landlord, had earlier filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 against the sitting tenant which was rejected by the prescribed authority by an order dated 10.12.1976. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 31.10.1977 passed by the District Judge Lucknow. The deceased petitioner No. 2, mother of the present petitioners carried out business of foreign liquor in the shop in pursuance of licence granted by State Government. After introducing auction system for liquor trade, the liquor business was continued for about two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : AIR2005All86; 2005(1)AWC682
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri Arvind Srivastava for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar (in short, the NOIDA).2. The petitioners are Welfare Societies/ Co-operative Housing Societies, and individual member of these societies. The writ petitions are directed against the letters issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA dated 13-11-2002 and 7-1-2003 by which the NOIDA has directed the individual members to execute a tripartite deed with the Welfare Societies/Co-operative Housing Societies as the lessees, and NOIDA, as the lessor, for sale of the superstructure and sub lease deed for the respective flats apartments, residential accommodations, allotted by the societies to its individual members; and for restraining the respondents from charging any stamp duty on the execution of such tripartite deed.3. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are stated as below :--In Writ Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-11-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1814
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. The short question involved in the present writ petition is that whether the Registrar has got power to condone the delay in pursuance to power conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act or in pursuance to any provision contained in Registration Act, 1908 (in short hereinafter referred as Act) in case an application is submitted under Section 73 of the Act beyond the period of limitation provided under the said section?2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 1.5.1978 with opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of sale of House No. 222/2 (ga) situated at Raja Bazar, Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 80,000 and taken advance of Rs. fifteen thousand. After execution of agreement a sum of Rs. 20 thousand was again received by the petitioner. A copy of agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application dated 13.9.1978 before opposite party No. 3, i.e., Sub-Regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-29-2004
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR1092]
R.B. Misra, J.Heard Sri S. Sandilya and V. Sandilya, learned Counsels for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh and Sri Mohan Yadav, learned Standing Counsels for the State respondents.1. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the orders dated 18.06.1992, 20.07.1992 and 23.07.1992 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively,2. By order dated 18.06.1992 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P., Lucknow had issued a circular, whereby in view of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic and Unani (Clerical Cadre) Services Rules, 1991 the post of Junior Clerk was brought under the purview of U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and thereby restrictions have been imposed in respect of adhoc appointment, as there is no provisions under the service rules for making adhoc appointment, therefore, in consonance to the provisions of Rules the appointment of the persons deployed on daily wages or on adhoc basis were to be dispensed with immediate eff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-27-2004
Reported in : 2006ACJ1461; 2006(1)AWC471
Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ.1. This first appeal from order arises out of an award passed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. The brief facts which gave rise to the filing of the claim petition are that one Ayaz Ahmad, who was driver of Mini Truck bearing No. U. P. 32 A/8306 while driving the same, met with an accident with the truck No. HR-38-6369. The accident occurred on Lucknow-Gorakhpur road when the deceased was coming from Basti to Gorakhpur and the offending vehicle was going from Lucknow to Gorakhpur. The time of accident is 7.30 a.m. The date of accident 24th January, 2000. According to the claimants' case, the driver of the truck, namely, the offending vehicle was driving rashly, negligently and at a very high speed and, therefore, it lost the balance and hit the mini truck of deceased Ayaz Ahmad who was driving the vehicle cautiously and with moderate speed. Further case was that the truck driver after hitting the mini t...
Tag this Judgment!