Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Akhlaq vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 February, 2019

Sushil Kumar Jain vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 2 August, 2019

32. Thus, for the reasons given above, the judgement of this Court in the case of Akhlaq (supra) does not come in aid of the petitioner. Accordingly, considering the fact that legislature has provided sufficient safeguard in case if there is any evasion of stamp duty by permitting the Government to prefer appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899, and further in case of any doubt regarding the chargeability of stamp duty under Section 31, Section 40 or Section 41, the Collector can refer the matter to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in the opinion of the Court, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present is a case of evasion of heavy stamp duty which has been brought to the notice to Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by the petitioner and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is obliged to refer the matter to the High Court is devoid of merit and is rejected. Further, in the scheme of the Act, the words ''otherwise coming to its notice' used in Section 57 of the Act gives remedy to the private party also who is one of the party to the lis to refer its case to the High Court in case it involves substantial question of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Smt Saavan Sri vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 March, 2022

In view of that law laid down by the Supreme Court as applied by the division bench of this Court and a long line of decisions (of learned single-Judge bench), the observations made to the contrary in Akhlaq (supra) and Smt. Muneeta (supra) giving the right of appeal to the complainant is clearly contrary to the binding principle and reasoning on that issue. In the context of disputes involving revocation of suspension of a fair price shop agreement, a ''aggrieved person' or ''person aggrieved' must be a person whose rights have been prejudiced by such order. Clearly, the present petitioner/complainant is not that person.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 5 - S D Singh - Full Document

Afreen Fatima vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 15 June, 2021

Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of intervenor has relied on paragraph nos.1,5,7 and 9 in 2008 SCC Online, Allahabad 511; Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. he has again relied on paragraph no.3, 10 and 11 in 2019 SCC Online Allahabad 4166; Akhlaq vs. State of U.P. & Ors. he has also relied onparagraph no.41 in (2012) 8 SCC 384; Vidur Impex & Traders Private Limited and Others vs Tosh Apartments Private Limited & Ors, with the submission that the complainant has a right to be heard in such matters and therefore the intervention application has been filed. He has further submitted that the appointment of petitioner was void owing to the fact that the same is against the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 since the petitioner could not have been appointed when her father was a Member of Managing Committee. However, the aspect of decision on intervention application is being left open at this stage.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M Mathur - Full Document
1