Advanced Search Results

Triloki Nath Pandey and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 16(1), 134-A, 226, 309, 310 and 311; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 2 and 24; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2 and 2(7) - Order XXVII, Rules 4 and 8-B; Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules - Rules 1, 2, 99, 103 and 162; Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Act - Sections 7 and 9; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 7-B, 241 and 241(2); Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules - Rule 114

Reported in : AIR1990All143; (1990)1UPLBEC542

Advocate for Appellant : G.P. Mathur, Adv.

ORDERV. N. Khare, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law in this writ petition and in the connected writ petitions are involved, we propose to decide these writ petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioner...

Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 162; Administrative Law; Madhya Pradesh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 - Sections 4, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 40, 47, 50, 52(1), 52(3), 52(4) and 68

Reported in : AIR1995MP75

Advocate for Appellant : A.M. Mathur, Senior Adv. and ;P. Mathur, Adv.

V.D. Gyani, J. 1. Judicial review of Staleaction by way of certiorari has been invokedby none else than the Vice-Chancellor of DeviAhilya Vishwavidhalaya, Indore. This Courtis faced with a dispute in which academicadministrative law, delegated legislation...

Hind Cement Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Limitation

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A and 11A(1); Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 9(2)

Reported in : 1987(14)ECC26; 1987(13)LC439(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT636(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur and ;V.K. Agarwal, Advs.

Om Prakash, J.1. The only question for consideration in this writ petition filed by M/s. Hind Cement Products Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner unit, which is owned by the Hind Ceramics Limited hereinafter...

Quality Exports and Chemicals Vs. Cegat, New Delhi

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A, 14, 35F and 35K; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 54

Reported in : 2002(140)ELT362(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Adv.

ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioners are partnership concern engaged in manufacturing of menthol and DMO and are registered with the Central Excise Department for the same. On 12-7-1995 the Central Excise Officers inspected the premises of...

Badarpur thermal Power Station and anr. Vs. Central Government Industr ...

Court : Patna

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(4)

Advocate for Appellant : O.P. Mathur,V. Shivnath, Neelima Reddy, M.B. Lal and D.K. Prasad, Advs.

R.N. Sahay, J. 1. The Central Government vide notificationdated April 5, 1980, referred a dispute betweenthe petitioners and workmen under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjucationto the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad.The terms of...

Cownpore Engineering Stores Vs. Cegat and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : CivilExcise

Acts : Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Rule 20

Reported in : (2003)IILLJ341All

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Counsel

Prakash Krishna, J.1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India.2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2001...

S.P. Gupta and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A, 35B and 35F; Constitution of India - Article 226; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 173Q

Reported in : 1993(68)ELT530(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Adv.

D.S. Sinha, J.1. Duty of excise amounting to Rs. 5,94,731 /- together with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been determined to be payable by the petitioner vide order dated 20th August, 1991 passed by the Collector,...

M.C. Goel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ExciseCustoms

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 129E

Reported in : 1988(15)LC356(Allahabad); 1988(35)ELT449(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Adv.

V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Petitioner M.C. Goel has assailed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi an order by which penalty to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed upon him. Under...

Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ExciseCivil

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35F

Reported in : 1997(90)ELT27(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Adv.

ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Both the writ petitions raise identical questions. M/s. Gan-geshwar Limited, Deoband through S.K. Dhar, authorised signatory is the petitioner in both these cases in which Union of India, Collector (Appeals) now designated as...

Associated Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Excise

Reported in : 1997(89)ELT488(All)

Advocate for Appellant : A.P. Mathur, Adv.

ORDERK.L. Sharma, J.1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner and Shishir Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondents and perused the record. Both the counsels agree that this writ petition be finally disposed of at...