Allahabad Court April 1981 Judgments
Oudh Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT937(All)
U.C. Srivastava, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by two Sugar Mills praying for the quashing of inclusion of molasses in Item 15CC of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and also for quashing the demand notice in pursuance thereof. Apart from other reliefs declaring certain provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ultra vires, a prayer is for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to deposit or realise any excise duty on molasses used for captive consumption in their distillery which is located in the compound in which the Sugar Factory itself is located. At the time of hearing of these writ petitions, the other pleas including the plea that molasses is a waste product was given up and it was contended by Sri Sorabjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners in one writ petition and Sri K R. Bhatt, Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the other writ petition that molasses is not a waste product but i...
Tag this Judgment!Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. Avadh University, Faizabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All73
T.S. Misra, J.1. The petitionerwas a student of Bajrang Degree College, Kunda, district Pratapgarh. Theexamination of B. A. Part I was conducted by the Avadh University. Faizabad,and the petitioner appeared in the same.He was assigned a roll number bearing2055 for that examination. However, asa result of the recommendation of theSub-Committee constituted by the Examination Committee the examinationof the petitioner for the year 1980 wascancelled and he was debarred fromappearing at the 1981 B. A. Part I examination. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the instant writ petition. Initially, he had challenged theaforesaid order in its entirety but at thetime of the hearing of the petition thelearned counsel for the petitioner statedthat the petitioner is aggrieved by thelatter part of the order whereby he hasbeen debarred from appearing at the1981 B. A. Part I examination and seeksthe quashing of the same. He also statedthat the petitioner does not now challenge the first part of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›