Allahabad Court September 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Parsu Ram Pandey Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ6
H.N. Seth, J.1. By this petition Parsu Ram Pandey challenges the validity of his detention under the provisions of the National Security Act authorised by the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide his order dated 28th of July, 1981.2. The petitioner was served with the order dated 28th July, 1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad authorising his detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act and also the grounds for his detention on 28th July, 1981 while he was still in prison in connection with another criminal case, In due course the District Magistrate reported the matter to the State Government which approved the petitioner's detention. The representation made by the petitioner against the detention was also rejected by the State Government.3. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of his detention Lon a number of grounds including that the detention order has been made in mala fide exercise of power and also that...
Munni Lal Vs. Smt. Sona and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All29
ORDERK.N. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 14-9-1977, contained in Ann. '3' to the writ petition, passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur, opposite party No. 4. by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the auction sale, held on 13th of May. 1969 wherein the petitioners had purchased plot No. 44 area 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in village Tarkapur, Pargana Kantit, tahsil and district Mirzapur.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the opp. parties Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Shiv Shanker and Smt. Karora, had filed a suit No. 232 of 1956, against the deceased opp. party No. 1, Smt. Sona alias Sonia, for the recovery of certain money on the basis of a simple mortgage deed. The suit was decreed on 25th Apr., 1957and a preliminary decree, under Order 34, Rule 4 C. P. C., was passed and a final decree for the sale of mortgaged property was prepared on 16th May, 1958. Th...
Raj NaraIn Pratap NaraIn Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All14
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order passed by the court below rejecting the plaintiffs application for issue of temporary injunction in the proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff entered into a special agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-9-1979 for supply of electricity to its Roller Flour Mill. A sum of Rs. 55,100/- was deposited as security and the Board in pursuance of the agreement installed a meter for indicating units of electric power consumed, Noother meter for indicating the maximum demand was, however, installed in the premises at that time. In the agreement one of the terms thereof related to settlement of disputes of certain nature through arbitration. The revisionist continued to pay all the charges in respect of the units consumed by it up to Apr. 1979 in accordance with the readings recorded by the meter. Ho...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Iii Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All181
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner is the tenure-holder to whom the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued. It seems that he did not contest and gave in choice some land which he had sold by a sale deed which was executed in 1973 in favour of the contesting respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The choice given by the petitioner was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority which is clear from the order dated 15-2-1975, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. It seems that the Prescribed Authority rejected the said choice because the transferees had put in appearance and contended that in view of the sale deed dated 12-1-1973 in their favour, the choice as given by the petitions as the tenure-holder, should not be accepted in view of the provisions contained in Clause (d) of the proviso to Section 12-A of the Act. This contention found ...
Shanker Lal Kedar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC382(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. On the undisputed facts that certain purchases were made by the assessee as commission agent of ex-U.P. principals the question is whether the assessee was entitled to exemption as these purchases were in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The claim of the assessee was repelled by the Tribunal and the decision given in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hanuman Trading Company 1979 UPTC 809 was distinguished because there was no agreement of purchase and sale between the assessee and its ex-U. P. principals. It was further held that an agent cannot make any sale or purchase to his principal. Therefore, when purchases were made by the assessee on behalf of its ex-U.P. principals it was purchased or sold in its own capacity. Reliance was placed on Panna Lal Babu Lal [1956] 7 STC 722. It was also held that once a registered dealer undertakes to carry out his obligation to constituents outside the State such purchases made by such dealer are in the course of inter-Sta...
Mahabir Vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Fatehpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All8
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was treated as the tenure holder and the notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to him. He filed objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-4-1979. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the petitioner tenure holder. It seems that the cross-appeal was filed by the State on 18th August, 1980. The petitioner moved an application in the State's appeal claiming that the same was time-barred and that accordingly, it should be dismissed. This application was rejected by the appellate court by its order dated 6-10-1980, a certified copy whereof is Annexure 4 on the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up to this Court in the instant writ petition and in support thereof. I have heard Sri C. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned...
Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. the District Judge, Gha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All421
ORDERA.N. Varma, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Const., the petitioner who is a plaintiff in a suit pending in the Court of the learned VIII Additional Munsif, Gaziabad, challenges the legality and propriety of two concurrent orders passed by the Courts below- declining to issue a temporary injunction restraining the defendants of the suit from using and displaying theirtrade name during the pendency of the suit. 2. The petitioner filed a Civil suit No. 163 of 198o at Ghaziabad for a permanent injunction restraining, the defendants, from using and exhibiting the name and style of the plaintiff company 'in any manner whatsoever,' Simultaneously with the institution of the suit the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction with the following prayer:-- 'It is, therefore, prayed that a temporary Injunction during the pendency of the above case be granted the defendants restraining them from using and exhibiting the name and style of the plainti...
Ram Murti Singh Vs. Gyanendra Kumar Arya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All185
ORDERK.N. Seth, J. 1. This revision was listed on 25-9-1979 but was passed over on the illness slip of the learned counsel. When it was listed on 27-9-1979 it was passed over on the illness slip of Sri Pandey. The case was then listed on 6-10-1979 and Sri Pandey again sent an illness slip. The case waspassed over on that date but it was directed to be listed peremptorily on 10-10-1979. It was listed peremptorily on that date but was left out. The case was then listed on 12-10-1979. On this date Sri R. N. Pandey again sent an illness slip. Since the case was listed peremptorily, it was not adjourned on the illness slip of the learned counsel. As no one was present to press the revision, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.2. The present application has been made for recalling the order dated 20-10-1974 and restoring the revision and deciding it on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the revision could not be dismissed for default on the ground that no one appea...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ram Sewak Hariom
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC197a(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. By these two revisions the Commissioner of Sales Tax has challenged the legality of view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, that the assessee was not taxable as the kiln was under attachment. The controversy has arisen because in survey dated 26th August, 1970, it was found that kiln was running although it had been attached on 28th March, 1969. It is not disputed that this attachment was lifted on 17th November, 1977. Consequently the kiln was under attachment in both the assessment years. The question is whether if the kiln ran or was operated the liability is of the assessee or of the supardar or any one else. The revising authority found that the kiln after attchment was placed in the custody of Ram Prakash Yadava. He appears to have moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, on 29th August, 1970, complaining that his servant Neksa Ram was manhandled and beaten by the sales tax authorities on 26th August, 1970 and on 7th Apri...
Masood Hasan Khan Vs. 3rd Additional District Judge, Moradabad and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All448
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U, P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these:The petitioner was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to him. He filed objections and they were decided by the prescribed authority, by his order dated 20-1-1975. Thereafter an appeal was filed but the same was dismissed by the appellate court. The petitioner then came to this Court in writ petition and the same was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 31-7-1981, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. The case was remanded to the appellate court for a fresh decision in respect of a controversy specified in the said judgment of this Court. Thereafter the appellate court again heard the appeal and in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the said writ petition, it considered the evidence and the material on record and held that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »