Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and came into existence on 18th August, 2003 and, therefore, the first assessment year was 2004-05. The petitioner is engaged in the business of development of real estate. The principal place of business as indicated in the returns was situate at E-41, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi. Subsequently, the office was shifted on 18th October, 2007 at A-193, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. Due intimation was given to the income-tax authorities on 18th October, 2007 and acknowledgement was received by the petitioner on 14th November, 2007 through National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) which is an agency outsourced by the income-tax authorities for the purpose of processing the pan cards, change of address, etc. 2. A search and seizure operation took place on 15th February, 2008 under Section 132(1) of the Act at the business premises of the petitioner's firm at A-193, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. This reference before the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a learned Single Judge dated 19 November 2010. The issues which have been referred to the Full Bench for resolution have been formulated thus: "(a) Whether the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 which provides for computation of distance of the institution concerned for the purpose of payment of house rent allowance from the original Nagarpalika, in the facts of the case Mirzapur, is binding between the parties; (b) Whether the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (c) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench holding that it is irrelevant from which Municipal Board the distance of the institution is less than 8 kilometers, lays down the correct position in law or not." In order to appreciate the issues which have been raised, a brief reference to the factual background would be necessary. There is an educational inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The controversy which is involved in the special appeals turns upon the guidelines which were framed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in regard to the Teacher Eligibility Test under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act of 2009). By a notification dated 23 August 2010 issued in exercise of the provisions of Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2009, NCTE laid down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for classes 1 to 8. Among the qualifications which were prescribed, is a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for the purpose. On 11 February 2011, NCTE circulated its guidelines to the State Governments. Insofar as is material, the guidelines made the following provision for qualifying marks in the TET: "Qualifying marks 9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Krishna Murari, J. 1. The petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of developing and setting up housing colonies and commercial complex. 2. The tender submitted by the petitioner for commercial plot no. 003 at Block No. M, Sector 18, before the respondent no. 1 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') was accepted and allotment letter dated 12.4.2004 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was put under an obligation to pay a sum of L40,25,24,433.25 being 25% of the allotment money after adjusting the earnest money of 3 crore already deposited within fifteen days from the date of the acceptance letter. The balance 75% of the premium amount was payable within 90 days from the date of issuance of the acceptance letter. In the meantime, public interest litigation was filed by one Anil Kumar Srivastava being writ petition no. 10137 of 2004 along...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. This reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order dated 25 January 2005 of a learned Single Judge. Facts The petitioner manufactured, at the material time, detergent bars in a factory at Orai. The three workmen to whom the proceedings relate were suspended on 5 December 1998 pending a disciplinary enquiry on the allegation that they had committed acts of misconduct within the premises of the factory on 5 December 1998. By the order of suspension they were directed, during the period of suspension to mark their attendance on all working days at 11.00 am in a register maintained for that purpose at the security office at the main gate of the factory. Charge sheets were issued on 11 December 1998. The workmen did not mark their attendance as directed by the employer in the order of suspension. The employer paid to the workmen subsistence allowance only for the days on which they had marked their attendance in the register kept at the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The dispute in the two appeals is the same and are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Income Tax Appeal No.174 of 2015 is being taken into consideration. 2. The present dispute relates to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee claims to be deriving income from companies for her services as a Director, income from house property and income from business of purchase and sale of foodgrains. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and, accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.11,52,470/-. While considering the matter, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had acquired lease hold rights over a nazul land along with her husband vide assignment-cum-sale deed dated 31st January, 2005. The said na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. This reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order dated 2 April 2015. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission1 issued an advertisement on 24 April 2014 notifying the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination 2014. The petitioner participated in the preliminary written examination on 3 August 2014. Candidates who had qualified in the preliminary written examination were required to submit an online application for appearing at the main written examination. An advertisement was issued on 4 October 2014 by the Commission notifying that the candidates who had been declared successful in the preliminary examination should visit the website of the Commission for obtaining information in regard to the process to be followed for appearing at the main examination. The four stages with a time schedule indicated in the advertisement were as follows: (i) Date for the filling up of applications online on the website of the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ. During the course of the hearing of a First Appeal From Order (for short F.A.F.O. ) arising out of a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Saharanpur dated 6 May 2014, a Division Bench of this Court formulated the following questions for consideration by a Full Bench (The questions have been slightly reformulated to bring greater clarity to the issues involved: (i) Where on account of a breach of an insurance policy, the owner of an offending vehicle has been held liable to pay compensation (the insurer having been held not to be liable) but a direction is issued to the insurer to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, does the insurer have a right to appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? (ii) If question (i) above is answered in the affirmative, to what extent and on what grounds will the insurer have the right to challenge an order of the Tribunal? (iii) In a sit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 May 2015, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed, an order of termination was set aside but on the principle of 'no work no pay', the claim for back wages was declined. The Bundelkhand University (University) and its Vice Chancellor are in special appeal. On 10 January 2005, a resolution was passed by the Executive Council of the University, which is a statutory body governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (State Universities Act) providing for the appointment of the first respondent as a Data Entry Operator, a Class-III post, until a regular-selection was made through a Selection Committee. The first respondent was accordingly notified on 10 January 2005. On 3 April 2005, the Executive Council reconsidered its earlier resolution and took a decision to regularize the services of the first respondent on the post of Data Entry Operator. On 16 Febru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
By the Court: An order dated 27 January 2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr is the subject matter of a challenge before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition1 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. While hearing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed an order on 18 December 2006, by which the learned Single Judge issued a direction fixing 31 March 2007 as the last date for furnishing details required for the registration of advocates practicing in the District Courts and before this Court at Allahabad and Lucknow. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: "By order dated 16.11.2006, this Court called upon Sri Pankaj Naqvi appearing for U.P. Bar Council to seek instructions whether 31st Dec 2006 be fixed as the last date for registration of advocates on the rolls of the District Courts for which modalities were prescribed in the order of the Court dated 25.7.2006. From a perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!