Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1982All439
T.S. Misra, J.1. By an order dated 28th Feb. 1978 the Government doctors were prohibited from private practice. The validity of that order was challenged by petitioners in these petitions. The two learned Judges, who heard these petitions, differed in their views, hence on 4th October, 1978 they referred the writ petitions for hearing to a third Judge. The matter was then listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. S. P. Singh but before he could render his opinion, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh framed the Uttar Pradesh Government Doctors(Allopathic) Restriction on Private Practice Rules, 1978 under Article 309 of the Constitution. The petitioners then sought amendment of the writ petitions with a view to challenge the validity of the said rules. Hon'ble C. S. P. Singh J, referred the case back to the Bench for considering the amendment applications and the validity of the rules. The Bench allowed the amendment applications and permitted the petitioners to challenge the vires of the rules. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All225
1. One Basdeonand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On 2nd November 1927 Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shankernand Gir the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798-11-0 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached:and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof.3. The application came before Sudeshar Maitra on 4th February 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full.The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant objector in connexion with his appeal to His Majesty in Council. The decree-holder is anxious to lay his hands on these i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(All)79; [2004]266ITR597(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions are husband and wife and are both doctors. Dr. Mrs. Anita Sahai is a gynaecologist running a maternity centre by the name of Manavi Women Clinic and Maternity Centre at B-237, Sector 19, Noida, Dr. Shard B. Sahai, her husband, is a qualified radiologist and is running a diagnostic centre in the name and style of Transmed Diagnostics at A-759, Sector 19, Noida, which is also the residence of both the petitioners.3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the warrant of authorisation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of block assessment proceedings, by issue of notice under Section 158BC of the Act by respondent No. 5, and continuation thereof by respondent No. 6 by issue of notice dated October 26, 2002, under Section 142(1) of the Act.4. The facts of the case are that on March 19, 2002, at about 8.00 a.m. the respondents authorities their of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(85)AWC2090
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1 to 4.2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are : petitioner's son S.K. Awasthi, advocate was charged with criminal contempt by a Division Bench of this Court being Criminal Contempt No. 19 of 2007. The Division Bench vide order dated 21st November, 2008 charged S.K. Awasthi with criminal contempt and directed the contemner to be taken into custody. The Division Bench to which the criminal contempt was assigned by judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007 punished the contemner with imprisonment for a period of one month. However, on the intervention of the members of the Bar that contemner would improve, the punishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All321
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the defendants, who have certain groves in mahal Bakar Ali and mahal Gobardhan Das in village Pachenda Kalan, have a transferable right in the trees of those groves, and on the answer to that question depends the decision of this appeal. The difficulty in answering the question is occasioned not so much by the apparent conflict in the reported decisions of this Court concerning the rights of persons who have planted groves on their occupancy or non occupancy holdings or on lands let to them with the object of planting a grove, as by the fact that the question at issue in the present appeal has on previous occasions been the subject of decisions by Courts in litigations between the zamindar and the holders of the groves in the two mahals, and the decisions have by no means been uniform. In particular there is irreconcilable conflict between a decision of the Board of Revenue and a decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All302
Brij Mohan Lal, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 7 of 1948 are two appeals by the plaintiff under Section 12 (2), Oudh Courts Act (4 of 1925) against two decrees of a learned single Judge of the erstwhile Chief Court. The appeals were preferred before the amalgamation of the Chief Court with the Allahabad High Court.2. The plaintiff is one Kunwar Radha Krishna Pratap Singh who was formerly the Assistant Manager of the Balrampur Estate. The appellant happens also to be related to the Maharaja, i. e., the proprietor of the estate. He brought the suit, which has given rise to these two appeals, to recover a sum of Rs. 2000 as damages for slander and libel against four persons, namely, (i) H. S. Bates, I. C. S., Manager of the estate, (2) Y. A. Dikshit, Confidential Adviser to the Maharani Saheba, (3) V. V. Singh, Private Secretary to the Maharaja and (4) the Maharaja. In the plaint, as originally filed, damages were claimed against the first three defendants only, and it was stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2414
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11th September, 2003 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in its contempt jurisdiction.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is a complete code, no appeal could be held to be maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules.3. Before we take up this question for consideration, it would be fit and proper that we must decide whether a contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act is maintainable in law. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act shall not lie against an order passed in a proceeding for contempt except against any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1199; (2001)2UPLBEC1806
Pradeep Kant, J.1. The petitioners, who belong to the Scheduled Castes category and have successfully completed their M.B.B.S. course, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for fixing 25 per cent marks as minimum qualifying marks for the U. P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination. 2000.2. The laying down of qualifying marks for the U. P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination has been the subject-matter of controversy even in previous years and is in litigation this year also. The recommendations made by the Medical Council of India and the directions issued by the Court have not yet been able to satisfy some of the candidates in respect of fixation of qualifying marks. The maintenance of high standards particularly in science and professional knowledge like medical profession, giving a chance to the most talented and meritorious students, and selecting the most meritorious candidates and maintaining efficiency in administration or some, ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2010]320ITR403(All); [2010]186TAXMAN137(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in a block assessment there is no scope of an assessment based on best judgment of an Assessing Officer and that the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of C.S.T. v. H.M. Eusufali H.M. Abdul Ali will not apply to it?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that since no hidden assets, movable or immovable, had been found, the assessee could not be expected to have made a fortune of unaccounted professional receipts?2. The reference relates to the block period from 1.4.1986 to 25.9.1996.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent assisted by his son, Dr. Sanjay Me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1918All24; (1919)ILR61All68; 48Ind.Cas.450
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed. There has been a very full discussion, upon somewhat unfamiliar lines in this Court; but we have no doubt as to the proper conclusion which ought to be reached. The appeal is brought by the plaintiffs, the registered patentees of a process of manufacture, the plaintiffs consisting of Lakhpat Rai, Sampat Rai, and Manphul Narain, and carrying on business at No. 14, Mullick Street, Calcutta, against a judgment dismissing their suit brought against the defendants Srikishan Das, Bahal Rai and Bhup Narain, carrying on business at Farrukhabad, for infringement of the patent. One Prag Narain who figures somewhat prominently in the case, is a member of the plaintiffs' firm, but, for reasons best known to the plaintiffs, was not one of the applicants for the patent and is therefore not a necessary party to the suit. The ground upon which the suit was dismissed was a question of fact, namely that the process for which the p...
Tag this Judgment!