Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3705
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.In view of the order, which is being passed in the writ petition no notices have been issued to respondents No. 4 and 5.Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector holding that application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed by respondent No. 4 is maintainable and the date was fixed for hearing the parties on merits. Against the order dated 30th April, 2007 a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the order dated 29th February, 2008.In Writ Petition No. 14110 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the second w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3922
V.K. Shukla, J.1. Tenant Swaraj Kumar has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 19.9.2005, passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2004, Arvind Kumar v. Swaraj Kumar passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Moradabad allowing release application, preferred on behalf of the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. Petitioner has been tenant of non-residential accommodation on monthly rent of. Rs. 700 per month situated at opposite H.S.B. Inter College, Moradabad wherein he has been doing his extensive business of brass manufacturing. Arvind Kumar landlord filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 20.10.2003 for release of premises in question in occupation of the tenant for settling his two sons claiming them to be unemployed. Said release application was contested by the petitioner by filing his. written statement on 7.1.2004 and therein plea was taken that petitioner was running ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC259
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word 'building' used in Section 2 (1) (g) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:(a) to (f) ... (not relevant).(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word 'building' used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word 'building' means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.4. Landlord-respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400 per month. It was also stated that ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-06-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC362
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2008, passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries of the claimant.2. It has been contended before us by the appellant/insurance company that the medical certificate, which has been given by the medical practitioner of the community health centre could not be said to be appropriate medical certificate for the purpose of ascertainment of disability of 45%.3. It is pertinent to mention that normally we consider the validity of the certificate to be issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer of the district, if there is signature of more than one medical practitioners by following the principle plurality causes genuinity. Learned Counsel has shown us a circular letter dated 26.8.1986 to that extent. After going through the same, we find that the same is not needed for consideration for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-04-2008
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(All)606
Satish Chandra, J.1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dt. 9th March, 2004, passed by the CIT under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, where he has cancelled the registration granted earlier on 1st April, 1999, for being a charitable institution.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860, bearing registration No. 290 of 1995. The petitioner, hereinafter known as the assessee, has applied for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act being a charitable institution. The opposite parties have granted registration on 1st April, 1999. Further, the exemption was also granted under Section 80G of the IT Act on 10th May, 1999.4. A survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act on 20th Sept....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-03-2008
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(All)167
Sushil Harkauli and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard both sides.2. The petitioner is a Society running a school. The petitioner claims that because up to the assessment year 1998-99, it was exempted under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), therefore it did not seek separate registration under Section 12A of the Act, so as to claim exemption under Section 11.3. Section 10(22) being omitted by the Finance Act, 1998, the petitioner applied for registration under Section 12A of the Act, with retrospective effect, that is since the inception of the petitioner-society i.e. 11.1.1993. An application for the purpose was duly made on 24.6.2003. Inasmuch as, under Section 12A(a) (as it stood at the time of making the application), the application was required to be made within one year from the date of creation of establishment of the Trust or Institution, therefore, condonation of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-14-2008
Reported in : 2009(238)ELT554(All)
Sushil Harkauli and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the notice dated 23.05.2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Collector (Collection) Trade Tax, Kanpur to the petitioner No. 2, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents not to realise any amount of trade tax from the petitioners till finalization of winding up proceedings pending before the respondents authorities.2. The petitioner No. 1, M/s Meekin Transmission Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Automotive Gears. Initially it was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 31.03.1983 and was converted in a Public Limited Company subsequently. In 1991 it became a sick unit and made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Si...
Tag this Judgment!