Court : Allahabad
M.C. Tripathi, J. 1. Gramin Bank of Aryavart (earlier known as 'Shreyas Gramin Bank) through its Chairman and the General Manager, Gramin Bank of Aryavart are before this Court assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 22.9.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.43145 of 2007 (Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Shreyas Gramin Bank and ors) wherein he had proceeded to allow the writ petition and the appellant-bank was directed to forthwith re-consider the claim for compassionate appointment within two months. 2. The factual situation that is accepted before us is that husband of the petitioner-respondent was working as a Class-IV employee under the appellant-bank and he died in harness on 27.9.2005. Thereafter being as widow of late Lala Ram, the petitioner-respondent had proceeded to move an application for compassionate appointment on 8th October, 2005. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 7.12.2010 precisely on the ground that in view of the new Scheme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ. The issue which falls for determination in the present reference to the Full Bench, turns upon the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act). Section 9 provides for an appeal against an order of the Estate Officer made in respect of public premises under Section 5 or Section 5B or Section 5C or Section 7. As the Section stands, no appeal has been provided against an order of the Estate Officer under Section 5A. Yet, a Division Bench of this Court held in Sanjay Agarwal Vs Union of India (Writ-C No 14580 of 2012 decided on 26 March 2012) that an appeal in respect of an order made under Section 5A is maintainable under Section 9. When this judgment was cited before the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, the Court found itself unable to agree with the view in Sanjay Agarwal on the ground that the right to appeal is a statutory right and where the statute has not provided an appeal under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Pankaj Mithal, J. The petitioner is an advocate. He is practicing exclusively before Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the application of the worker with regard to one of the prayers has been allowed and he has been debarred from representing the management in Industrial Case No.16 of 2014, C.D. Pal, General Secretary Mazdoor Union Vs. Commandant 508 Army Base Workshop, Fort Allahabad. The petitioner has been debarred as he is not an officer of the Army Base Workshop and at the same time had neither the consent of the worker or the Worker's Union nor the leave of the Court to represent the management in the said case. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred a dispute regarding recovery of wages alleged to be paid in excess to the office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Both the appeals are being decided together since it involves the same questions of law. For facility, the facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 734 of 2007 is being taken into consideration. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer and exporter. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee filed his return showing nil income claiming deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. The computation of total income was checked and the deduction claimed under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of the Act was scrutinized. The assessing authority, accordingly, computed the total income at nil after allowing deductions under Sections 80-IB and 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer concluded as under: "In response to discussion during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the copies of Balance Shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs. 1. "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. suspending the entire election programme of the Bar Association ; 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere in election process of Bar Association and direct the elder committee and office bearers of the Bar Association to initiate and conclude the election of the Bar Association rescheduling its election programme afresh within a very reasonable time to be specified by this Court ; 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ; and 4. Award cost of the petition to the petitioners." 3. Brief facts of the case are that peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has various objects. One such object is to establish an educational institution. In the year 2001-02, the petitioner established an educational institution in the name and style of Institute of Information Management and Technology at Ramghat road at Aligarh. This institution is affiliated to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. Prior to the assessment year 2007-08, the total receipts was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 crores. As such, the petitioner fell under Section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The returns were filed accordingly which were accepted by the department and the petitioner- society was declared non taxable. 2. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner filed its return showing an income of Rs.86,81,911/-, which was not accepted. The Assessing Officer found that the income of the petitioner was above R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. The special appeal is from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7 September 2015. The appellant was admitted in 2006-07 to the MBBS degree course at Safai Medical College on a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The appellant claims to belong to the Scheduled Tribe of Meena. Admittedly, the aforesaid tribe has been designated as a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State of Rajasthan but not in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The father of the appellant was employed in the Railways and was at the material time posted at Najibabad in the district of Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the appellant's father was transferred to New Delhi as part of the exigencies of service and eventually retired from service. The appellant completed his MBBS degree course in 2012-13 (on a reserved seat) and applied for the U.P. Post Graduate Medical Education Examination (UPPGMEE) on a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The appellant was required to file his certif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Yashwant Varma, J. 1. The twenty-seven petitioners who are all Laboratory Technicians in the Uttar Pradesh Rural Institute of Medical Sciences And Research, Saifai (The Institute) have petitioned this Court seeking the following reliefs: (a) Quashing of an advertisement dated 27 August 2006 to the extent it provided that the Laboratory Technicians would be appointed in a pay scale Rs. 4000-6000 in place of Rs.4500-7000; (b) Quashing of the appointment letters issued to the petitioners to the extent that it provided for a pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 in place of Rs.4500-7000; (c) Quashing of the resolution of the governing body of the Institute dated 28 June 2008 as well as the consequential order passed by the Director on 10 July 2008; (d) To grant to the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 with arrears of pay scale from the date of their initial appointment; and (e) Grant of the new scale of Rs.5000-8000 being the scale of pay made effective from 28 July 2007 for Laboratory Technic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The present appeals relate to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. All the appeals involve the same question of law and are being disposed of by a common order. All the appellants are co-owners of a land situate at khasra no. 634 at village Artoni, Mathura Road, Agra. The land was mortgaged with State Bank of India, Agra, for the loan taken by the firm M/s Mehra Off Set Press in which the assessees were partners. On account of the non-payment of the outstanding dues, the Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount and pendente lite interest. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings, One Time Settlement was arrived at, on the basis of which, the assessees negotiated and entered into an agreement on 04.07.2001 with subsequent purchaser to sell the land at Rs. 34,71,750/- per hectare. In furtherance of the said agreement, the assessees received part consideration through which the liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant took a loan of Rs.21.20 lacs from a Company known as Sarnath Finance Limited, in which the appellant is a share holder to the extent of 15%. In assessment proceedings the appellant was required to explain as to why the loans and advances taken from Sarnath Finance Ltd. should not be treated as a deemed dividend in view of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The assessing authority, after considering the explanation held, that the alleged loan taken by the appellant was a deemed dividend and, therefore an income from other sources. The assessing authority held that the Finance Company, namely, Sarnath Finance Limited was mainly engaged in advancing hire purchase of transport vehicle and that the said Finance Company had only made 10.79% investment in loans and advances which cannot be termed as a substantial part of business of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!