Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-06-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC3680
1. This matter has come come up before us pursuant to the reference made by Hon'ble Single judge vide order dated 18.12.2006, formulating the following two questions to be answered by a larger Bench:(i). Whether the decision in Pallav Sheth case : 2001CriLJ4175 , can be construed so as to apply all the principles enshrined in the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act (except Section 17 thereof) and as to whether the same can be made applicable to proceedings to be initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.(ii). Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers for initiating contempt of its Court or the contempt of its subordinate court or Tribunal, as the case may be, has the power to condone and waive the delay in initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Courts Act.2. The two questions appear to have been formulated following the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant based on certain observations of the Apex Court in Palla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-01-2009
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
Decided on : Sep-02-2009
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
Decided on : Jul-02-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC3443
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.1. The aforesaid writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.2000, passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has been allowed.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. The petitioners are the landlords and owners of the disputed premises No. 104A/170 Rambagh, Kanpur Nagar. They filed an application under Section 21(8) of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, by order dated 31.1.1996 allowed the application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and enhanced the rent to Rs. 4,900 per month plus water tax. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a review application before the court below for reviewing the order dated 31.1.1996 and the same was dismissed on 13.5.1998 as non-maintainable. Thereafter an appeal under Section 22 was filed against the order dated 31.1.1996 on 28.5.1998 alongwith an application under Section 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-02-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC387
Shishir Kumar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-15 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4.2. Petitioner who is tenant of the shop in dispute since long and is carrying on his business and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute.3. It appears that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed against petitioner on 8.1.1993. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1993. It has been stated that no notices were ever served upon petitioner. However, tenant came to know regarding the aforesaid proceedings and put his appearance on 13.5.1993. Then an application was filed on behalf of respondent-landlord to withdraw the case. The aforesaid application was allowed on 20.5.1993. Another application was filed on 29.5.1993 and co-landlord Ram Prakash was made respondent No. 1 while petitioner was made respondent No. 2. Notices by registered post were issued on 29.5.1993...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-10-2009
Reported in : [2010]187TAXMAN88(All)
1. This appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi was correct to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by refusing to condone the delay of 279 days?2. Whether the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is sustainable in view of the decisions of Collector, Land Acquisitions. Katiji (Mst.) : [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). Auto Centre v. State of U.P. : [2005] 278 ITR 291 (All.) and IT Appeal No. 25 of 2004, Bharat Auto Centre Lanka Ghazipur v. CIT dated 8-7-2005.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this appeal is being heard and finally decided.3. Present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 8-7-2005 for the assessment year 2001 -02, whereby the Tribunal has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-23-2009
Reported in : AIR2009All93; 2009(2)AWC1336
Janardan Sahai, J.1. Heard S/Sri A.M. Singhvi, T.P. Singh, Rakesh Dwlvedi, senior advocates and S/Sri Manish Goyal, S.D. Singh, Ritvik Upadhyay, V.K. Upadhyay, Vishal Kakkar, Shahid Rizvi, Rakesh Ranjan, Tripathi B.G. Bhai advocates for the petitioner and S/Sri Ravikant Sr. advocate, Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. On a difference of opinion between brother Yatindra Singh, J., and brother Ran Vijay Singh, J., in six connected writ petitions M/s. Hero Motors Ltd.; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., M/s. Amar Ujala Publications Ltd.; M/s. Telesia Trading and Finance Ltd.; M/s. Prudential Merchants and Traders Ltd. and M/s. Padamshree Projects, this matter has been referred for opinion to me. In the other writ petitions the question involved was the same and as such it appears the Division Bench before which these cases were being heard has tagged those cases with M/s. Hero Motors or other connected cases in which there was a difference of opinion between Brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-29-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2866; 2009(41)PTC159(All)
Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent M/s Girraj Food Products, Hathras through its proprietor instituted Original Suit No. 1 of 2009 against the defendant-appellants under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from packing and selling 'Namkeen' with the name of 'Raja Chaudhary' which was said to be similar and deceptive to the registered trade mark 'Chacha Chaudhary' of the plaintiff-respondent; for accounting with regard to sale so for made with the deceptive name; and for seizer of all such deceptive material. 2. The suit was instituted on 12.12.2007 and an application for interim injunction was also moved therein. The application was opposed by the defendant-appellants by filing objection on 19.3.2009 and further written statement and it was inter alia contended that as the registered trade mark of the plaintiff-respondent itself is in question, the proceedings of the suit are liable to be stayed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-23-2009
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2619
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the impugned detention order dated 6-12-2007 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition)' passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (Respondent No. 2), detaining petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the N.S. Act'), and further, for directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents.3. From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition as also in the Counter Affidavits, the facts as stated here-in-after, emerge.4. It appears that a First Information Report was lodged by one Raj an Kumar Jaiswal on 22-9-2007 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 21-9-2007. The said First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No. 1624 of 2007, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-20-2009
Reported in : (2009)25VST92(All)
Bharati Sapru, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Namai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Department.2. As the controversy involved in both these revisions is identical, the same is being decided by a common order treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 150 of 2001 as common case.3. The revision No. 150 of 2001 has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, in proceedings arising out of penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 15A(1)(o) of the Act for the assessment year 1989-90.4. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories for sugar and cement plants and has a factory at Thiruvotiyur, Madras. It is registered as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.5. The assessee, in the course of its business, entered into a contract with the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.,...
Tag this Judgment!