Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and came into existence on 18th August, 2003 and, therefore, the first assessment year was 2004-05. The petitioner is engaged in the business of development of real estate. The principal place of business as indicated in the returns was situate at E-41, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi. Subsequently, the office was shifted on 18th October, 2007 at A-193, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. Due intimation was given to the income-tax authorities on 18th October, 2007 and acknowledgement was received by the petitioner on 14th November, 2007 through National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) which is an agency outsourced by the income-tax authorities for the purpose of processing the pan cards, change of address, etc. 2. A search and seizure operation took place on 15th February, 2008 under Section 132(1) of the Act at the business premises of the petitioner's firm at A-193, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition arises out of an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, the question arose as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009 Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others wherein it has been held that the judicial orders of Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam (supra) submits that a distinction has been carved out between the Civil Court and a Tribunal. Mere reading of paragraph 10, 11 and 21 of the said pronouncement makes it clear that the orders of Civil Court stand on a differe...
Tag this Judgment!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
Ashok Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No.48250/2013, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are: The petitioner no.1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has been carrying out its activities since 1995. The petitioners' company suffered heavy losses in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-2010. A reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1985") was made by the petitioners Company before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the "BIFR") in the Month of October, 2010. The reference was registered as BIFR Case No. 53/2010. The Board proceeded with the reference and called for certain informations and in its proceedings da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Ashok Bhushan, J. This writ petition raises an important issue as to whether after the repeal of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,1976") by The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Repeal Act,1999") an appeal challenging the order of the competent authority dated 31/3/1997, declaring surplus vacant land can be filed under Section 33 of the Act, 1976. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13/8/2012, passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing the Appeal No.68/2011 filed by the respondent against the order dated 31/3/1997, of the competent authority under the Act, 1976 by which 48266.42 Square Metres was declared as surplus vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are: Proceedings under the Act, 1976 were initiated by issuing a notice dated 27/12/1996 under Section 6(2) to the tenure holder Jagdish Chandra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner alongwith his sister, Smt. Nirmala Devi filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 07 of 2009 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") impleading one Sandeep Sharma son of Sri Satish Chandra Sharma and the Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as defendants. 2. The facts, in brief, are that another brother of claimant met an accident on 05.09.2008 while travelling in Bus No. UP 85 E-9372 and died. Hence, claim was filed for compensation. The petition was allowed by Tribunal and judgment was delivered by respondent no. 2, Sri Rajaram Saroj, Additional District Judge, Aligarh, the Presiding Officer of Tribunal on 01.08.2011. The Insurance Company came up in appeal, i.e., First Appeal From Order No. 3515 of 2011. The appeal was admitted on 01.11.2011 and Court passed following interim order: "Heard on the question of grant of interim relief. Having regard to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Manoj Misra, J. 1. I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma assisted by Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar Singh for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By this revision, the revisionist, who is the informant, has challenged the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2012, whereby the opposite party No.2 (Daulat Singh) has been declared juvenile in reference to Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.3. The facts, as they appear on the record, are that in respect to an incident dated 12.12.2011 relating to the murder of the informant's uncle, a first information report was lodged by the revisionist against six persons including the opposite party no.2 (Daulat Singh), which was registered as Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 147/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. This is a tenant's writ petition. Respondent no. 1 is the owner and landlord of the building in dispute which consists of one room, i.e., a shop, in premises No. 88/373A (New No. 88/390), Humayunbagh, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is not in dispute that the shop in question was initially under tenancy of one Mohd. Ismail. The building was owned by somebody else and purchased by respondent no. 1, Sri Mansoor Ali vide sale deed dated 10.05.1985. He served a notice upon petitioner-tenant sometime in 1999 i.e. after the death of Sri Mohd. Ismail, and devolution of tenancy rights upon his legal heir(s). 4. Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), was filed in the year 2000 vide plaint dated 24.08.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. The borrower and the guarantors of the financial assistance granted by the State Bank of India have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 2nd April, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by which the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kotak Mahindra Bank') for its substitution in place of the State Bank of India in the recovery certificate on the basis of the assignment deed dated 29th March, 2006 has been allowed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 11th May, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been dismissed. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that petitioner no.3- M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in fabrication and manufacturing work, was granted financial assistance by the State Bank of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
VINOD PRASAD, J. This revision U/S 53 of Juvenile Justice ( Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000, ( herein after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by Kushagra Mokhariwale son of a bank cashier Diwakar Mokhriwale for being released on bail in crime no. 247 of 2011, under Section 386 I.P.C., P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. For seeking desired relief revisionist has challenged impugned orders dated 20.4.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra, and order dated 7.5.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Juvenile Appeal No. 116 of 2011. By the aforesaid orders, Juvenile Justice Board and appellate Court, both have refused to release the revisionist on bail in the aforementioned crime number for aforementioned offence. Before entering into discussions on the contentions raised and opposed in this revision, a quick search light on the back ground facts indicate that informant Ramesh Nagvani lodged a FIR at P.S. Hariparwat on 25.3.2011 at 8.22 p.m. aga...
Tag this Judgment!