Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-06-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2136
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction release proceedings initiated by Faiyaz Khan original landlord petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives against Dr. Aziz who died during pendency of the proceedings before prescribed authority and was substituted by respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in the form of cast; No. 102 of 1980. It was filed on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before prescribed authority.2. Release application was initially allowed on 29.1.1982 finding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and deciding the question of comparative hardship also in favour of the landlord. However the Said judgment was set-aside in part in appeal and the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority to decide the question of comparative hardship again. After remand prescribed authority/ Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi dismissed the release application on 31.10.1985, however in the said judgment also bonaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2006
Reported in : AIR2006All259; 2006(3)AWC2823
Ajoy Nath Ray and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.1. This is an special appeal from a four line interim order, dated the 14th of February, 2006, whereby the directions for affidavits were given but the interim order, which was subsisting in aid of the writ petition until then was not extended.2. The appellant come up before us saying that grant of interim order of a substantial nature makes a judgment of an Hon'ble Single judge appealable as much as the withholding of such an interim order by an Hon'ble Single Judge.3. However, another point of appealability is also taken by Mr. Shashi Nandan on behalf of his client, whom we shall call the later bidders. 4. The facts are basically these. A large piece of trust properties was allegedly agreed to be sold by the trustees of a certain trust in Kanpur to the clients of Mr. Ravi Kant, whom we shall call the first offerors. According to them the property was agreed to be sold to them for Rs. 1.61 crore and a banker's cheque of Rs. 85 lac was paid and encas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-22-2006
Reported in : AIR2007All90
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma for the appellant, Sri B.K. Narain for respondent No. 1 and learned standing counsel.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the order of the appellate Court, District Judge, Badaun in Appeal No. 6 of 2006, dated 30th March, 2006 by which order the appeal filed by the defendant against the trial Court's decree passed in Original Suit No. 75 of 1991 dated 4th February. 2006 was admitted.3. The Stamp Reporter of the Court has raised objection regarding maintainability of this special appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also supported the objection and contended that this special appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.4. Sri. S.K. Varma, when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-18-2006
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)62; [2007]293ITR244(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Universal Subscription Agency Private Limited, seeks the following reliefs:(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices dated 25.10.2000 and 4.9.2000 (Annexure - IV, V, VI & IX) issued under Section 147/148 of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1997-98.(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 25.10.2000 and 4.9.2000 (Annexure IV, V, VI & IX) issued under Section 147/148 of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1997-98.(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.(iv) Award cost of the petitioner to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow:Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-10-2006
Reported in : (2009)20VST19(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated April 13, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2004-05.2. Brief facts of the case are that against the order of the first appellate authority dated January 29, 2005, which was served on the counsel on February 8, 2005, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal on February 21, 2006 beyond time by 287 days. Appeal was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it was contended that by mistake of counsel an appeal could not be filed and when the applicant contacted his counsel for the preparation of the assessment case for the assessment year 2004-05, it was found that the appeal against the appellate order dated January 29, 2005 could not be filed. The earlier ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-11-2006
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(All)284; [2006]284ITR166(All)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, dated March 17, 2006 (annexure 14 to this writ petition), purporting to have been passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By that order the Commissioner has cancelled the last two renewal orders dated January 2, 2002 and June 4, 2004, issued under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and has directed petitioner No. 1 (the assessee-trust) not to use the said renewals while accepting donations from the public and to clarify in writing that donations given to the said trust are not entitled to deduction under Section 80G.2. The facts leading to the impugned order are that one Smt. Rajwati Bhatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'settlor' of the trust), executed an unregistered trust deed dated March 15, 1991. A copy of the trust deed is enclosed as annexure 1 to this writ petition. By that document, a sum of Rs. 1,101 (ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-07-2006
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC4192
Prakash Krishna, J.1. Questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 25.5.2005, whereby the defence of the tenant has been struck off, the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.2. The factual matrix of the case qua the above controversy in brief is as follows:The opposite party, Shyam Sundar Agrawal, instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2004 against the present applicant Chandan Singh, who is defendant in the said suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the disputed shop as well as ejectment of the defendant on the pleas inter alia that for a period of 11 months, the plaintiff on 20.2.2003 let out the disputed shop, described at the foot of the plaint, on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000 to the defendant tenant. It was pleaded that the defendant tenant executed a rent deed for the aforesaid period of 11 months on the said date, i.e., 20.2.2003. The defendant having failed to handover the vacant possession after the exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-05-2006
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC992
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.1. The short basic issue in all these appeals is whether the Aligarh Muslim University is a minority Institution. The point arises because suddenly some eighty five years after incorporation, they chose for the first time to reserve a Muslim quota, by way of a 50% reservation of post-graduate course seats meant for qualified MBBS doctors. The judgment under appeal before us has been delivered by an Hon'ble Single Judge of our Court on the 4th of October, 2005. Both sides, to be more accurate, all parties, felt aggrieved, and came up in appeal. The appeals will all be disposed of by this common order.2. On the one side, who spoke first were, the Aligarh Muslim University, represented by Mr. S.S. Ray, leading Dr. Dhawan, the Union of India and the learned Attorney General on whose behalf Mr. Gopal Subramaniam addressed us, two individuals one of whom is a member of the Court of the University, which is its administrative body, the Minority Commission whose case was put...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-28-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2412
Saroj Bala, J.1. All these bunch cases involving common question of law are being decided together.2. The facts of each writ petition are as hereunder:1. Writ Petition No. 31782 of 19923. The order impugned in the writ petition is the citation dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). A contract for realisation of Tehbazari dues for the financial year 1990-91 was granted to the petitioner the highest bidder for Rs. 2,85,000/-. The petitioner entered into an agreement. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 85,000/- remained outstanding towards the contract in question which is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 291 of the U.P. Municipalities Act are not applicable. According to the petitioner the contract money cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue,4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.2. Writ Petition No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-09-2006
Reported in : AIR2007All39; 2007(1)AWC329; [2007(2)JCR340(All)]
Prakash Krishna , J.1. Bungalow known as 'White House' being House No. 15/71, Civil Lines Kanpur standing on plot Nos. 104, 104-A 104-B, total area of about 14972 sq. yards was sought to be purchased by the present applicant, namely, Sri Ramesh Chandra Srivastava (now dead) and represented by his heirs and legal representatives from its owner namely Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (L.D.T.A.), duly incorporated under the Companies Act, for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On 5th May, 1960 the applicant and LDTA entered into registered agreement to purchase the aforesaid premises by means of a registered agreement to purchase. Applicant paid Rs. 5000/- as earnest money for the aforesaid bungalow standing on lease hold property and there was a condition in the lease deed prohibiting alienation except with the sanction of the District Magistrate, and, therefore, an application for permission to sell the lease hold rights in favour of the applicant was moved. Requisite permission was granted by ...
Tag this Judgment!