Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-17-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC665
O.P. Garg, J.1. This is an appeal under Rule 47 of the U. P. Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1994') against the order dated 13.4.1998 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, in an Election Petition No. 21 of 1995 filed under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1994 whereby the election petitioner-Hari Raj-present respondent No. 1 was declared to have been duly elected as Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat, Ghaziabad.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. K. Sharma. learned counsel for the respondent No. 1--Hari Raj.3. An election to the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat. Ghaziabad, was held on 22.5.1995. Admittedly there are 28 members who were entitled to vote for electing the Adhyaksha out of whom 27 members participated in the election as one of the members was absent on account of illness. Out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on : May-29-1998
Reported in : (1999)68ITD288(All.)
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals by two different assessees of the same group against the orders dt. 22nd September, 1997, of the Asstt. CIT, Circle II (1), Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brief) for the block period 1st April, 1986, to 25th September, 19961 as they involve similar facts and common questions of law and were argued by the same set of counsel from both sides.2. Dr. R. M. L. Mehrotra, assisted by his son, Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra, the other appellant, his wife, Dr. Bandana Mehrotra and certain other doctors, is running a pathology clinic in the capital city of Lucknow.The aforesaid trio of doctors together with other connected doctors, all members of a bigger family, were subjected to search on 25th September, 1996, when certain assets, account books and other documents, etc. were found and seized. The assessments of the present appellants were completed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1998
Reported in : 1999ACJ1035
D.K. Seth, J.1. Leave is granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps to amend the cause title course of today.2. The claim petition of the petitioners being Claim Case No. 23 of the 1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ballia, was dismissed in default on 12.8.1992. It appears that an application for restoration was filed on 29.10.1992. The said application was registered as Application No. 74 of 1992. The restoration application was dismissed in default on 27.51994. A restoration application against the said order was filed on 11.7.94, which was registered as Case No. 3-A of 1994. By an order dated 18.11.1997 the said application was rejected. All these orders have since been challenged in this petition.3. Mr. Ashish Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the court below had taken a very technical view of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-17-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ521
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the upright on the following questions :1. Whether the duties of the public prosecutor/Government Advocate are statutory in nature? If so, its effect?2. Whether the public prosecutor/Government Advocate is a public servant holding a civil post and cannot be removed without affording him a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice?3. Whether before appointing a public prosecutor/Government Advocate, consultation with the High Court is necessary, in view of the undertaking given by the Advocate General and the practices or conventions?4. Whether a tenure appointment can be cut short by removing the appointee without giving him an opportunity to show cause?5. Whether a public prosecutor/Government Advocate appointed under a spoils system and can be removed by the spoils system and can be removed by the sweet discretion of the State ...
Tag this Judgment!