Allahabad Court April 1984 Judgments
Abdul Ghaffar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All283
K.N. Singh, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged validity of the land acquisition proceedings taken by respondents under which the petitioner's land has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition . Act.2. Abdul Gaffar, the petitioner is the owner of abadi land having Municipal Nos. 262 and 263 situate in the town of Sikandarabad, district Bulandhshar. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the Collector, Bulandsbahr on November 7, 1970. Objections under Section 5A of the Act were invited. After obtaining the report of the Collector under Section 5A of the Act, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on November 8. 1973 acquiring the petitioner's land for the purpose of construction; of a building for science Laboratory, Dark Room, Cycle stand for the Jain Higher Secondary School, Sikandarabad run by Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Nizam UddIn Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1247
B.K. Katju, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.2. The petitioner is detained in District Jail, Moradabad under the order of the District Magistrate Moradabad dt. 15.7.1983 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order along with copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry were served on the petitioner on the same day (15.7.1983) in jail. The petitioner submitted his representation on 3.8.1983. A copy of the representation was sent on that very day to the Advisory Board by the District Magistrate Moradabad and was placed before the Advisory Board on 4.8.1983. The District Magistrate sent another copy of the representation to the Police authorities on 3.8.1983. The comments of the Police authorities were received by the district Magistrate on 8.8.1983 and the representation of the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shraddha Kumari Vs. Lucknow University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All71
K.N. Goyal, J.1. The petitioner is Head of the Department and Dean of the Faculty of Law in the Lucknow University since July, 1981. The Deanship rotates every three years. She had earlier also held this post between 1972 and 1976. The Executive Council of the University has set up an inquiry against her, and this writ petition has been directed against the said decision of the Executive Council.2. The relevant facts are as follows : --On 8-9-82 the Vice-Chancellor (opposite party No. 2) wrote to the petitioner that the employees of the law faculty had complained that they had not received their salary for the month of August in due time. He asked her for reasons why the bills had not been signed by her. This letter is annexure-6 to the petition. She replied to the Vice-Chancellor the same day, vide annexure-7, pointing out that it was because of the fault of the Assistant Office Superintendent Sri G. D. Tandan that the payment of salaries was delayed. No decision had been taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmeshwar Rai Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1676
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. These are two revisions - Criminal Revision No. 1318 of 1983 filed by the Principal of Merchant Inter College, Chitbaragaon, Ballia and Criminal Revision No. 2092 of 1983, filed by Zaheer, the Manager of the Institution. The two revisions have been preferred against the order of Sri B.B. Singh, II Addl. Munsif Magistrate. Ballia framing charge against the revisionists under Sections 409, 420, 467. 201 and 120 I.P.C. The counsel for the revisionists concluded their arguments yesterday. Today the State counsel had to reply and submitted his reply. It has been urged that actually there are no materials for framing any charge against the two revisionists. The order of the Magistrate which is quite a detailed one has also been annexed and the Magistrate has given his reasons for framing charge. I have also perused the Audit Report and the other materials as contained in the case diary which is available. Learned Counsel for the revisionist Mohammad Zaheer relied upo...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Mandir Biraiman Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All300
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a petition by the landlord and arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent & Eviction) Act. 1972. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The landlord had applied for the eviction of a tenant from the temple premises on the ground that the accommodation in question was required for Hawan, Kirtan, Bhajan etc. which were held in the temple and for which the accommodation has become short because of the growing number of devotees. 3. The application was contested by the tenant who alleged that the shebait, Haridesh Chand had converted a portion of the accommodation belonging to the temple into a shop. It was also asserted that sufficient open space was available for the activities of the temple. It way also the case of the tenant that if the application is allowed, he would be deprived both of his business which he carried on in the premises in dispute and also of his residence. It is submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Prakash Arya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1321
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, upholding the contention of the Union of India that the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the applicant for the offences under Sections 27(a)(ii) read with Section 18(c), Section 27(a)(i) and Section 27(b) read with Section 18(a)(i), Section 18(a)(ii), 18(a)(iii) Section 28 read with Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which is triable by the Sessions Court.2. It appears that on receiving information that the accused applicant was selling spurious drugs from his shop known as M/s. Aggrawal Medicine Company, Upper Bazar, Modinagar, a test purchase of 5 capsules of Oxytetracycline, Batch No. 190773, manufactured by M/s. Cooper pharma, New Delhi, was made along with other drugs from the aforesaid shop. The capsules were sent to the Director, Central India pharmacopoeia Labor...
Tag this Judgment!Afzal HusaIn Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All79
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. Afzal Husain, son of Altaf Husain has directed this petition against the proceedings taken by Shia Central Board of Waqfs U. P., opposite party No. 3, for his eviction from house No. 68/218 and the appurtenant land situate at Mohalla Bari Hat, district Bahraich.2. On 7-10-1977 the Collector Bahraich issued an order to the petitioner stating therein that he had received a requisition from the Secretary Shia Central Board of Waqfs under Section 57A(i) of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 regarding petitioner's unauthorised occupation of the property described in the order and requiring the petitioner to deliver possession of the said property to the Shia Central Board of Waqfs U. P. within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the order. In this order it was also stated that if the petitioner failed to deliver possession to the Waqf Board, ejectment proceedings shall be initiated against him as laid down in Rule 7 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs (Recovery of Waq...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Mohan Rastogi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(All)112; [1987]163ITR17(All)
A. Banerji, J.1. An interesting question arises in this writ petition. The petitioner claims that certain silver bullions which were seized from a trader in bullions belonged to the petitioner and the same had not been released in his favour and that his representations had been rejected illegally. He has prayed in this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to release and return the seized silver weighing 7.660 kg. and for the quashing of the order dated January 29, 1981, in respect of seizure of the silver of the petitioner.2. First the relevant facts : an income-tax raid was conducted against a bullion dealer, Chetmani Enterprises, Varanasi, on November 1, 1980, by the Income-tax Officer (B Ward), Varanasi. The seized articles included 7.660 kg. of silver in the form of ornaments, rods, etc. The petitioner's case was that he had given the silver to the bullion dealer the same day at about 11 in the morning for testing its purity with the i...
Tag this Judgment!Lallan Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ267
I.P. Singh, J.1. Lallan, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Shri Bhagwant Prasad, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 2-12-1978 convicting and sentencing the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1976 (State v. Lallan) Under Section 16(i)(a-i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further three months regorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that on 6-12-1975 at 3.45 P.M. Pyare Lal, Sanitary Supervisor P.W.1, Shri Nath Sahai, Food Inspector P.W. 2, of Lalganj area checked the shop of Lallan appellant He ran a grocery shop and dealt in oil, spices, rice, pulses biscuits, lemon-choos and other such materials. Sri Nath Sahai, Food Inspector P.W.2 purchased from the appellant samples of various articles including lemon-choos, which is the subject matter of the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip NaraIn Lal Vs. Mahendra Pal JaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1243
B.C. Jauhari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Kuldip Narain Lai, appellant, against the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Goel in Contempt Case No. 304 of 1981, reported in 1982 All WC 671 : 1982 UPLT NOC 79, Kuldip Narain Lal v. Sri Mahendra Pal Jain and Sri Shanker Lal Jaiswal, by which he has discharged the notice for contempt issued against the opposite parties and held them not to be guilty of the contempt of Court.2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as Officiating Collection Amin by the order dated 22.8.1980. But subsequently by another order dated 21.6.1981 he was made seasonal Collection Amin. The appellant challenged this order by way of a petition before the Service Tribunal Lucknow and applied for an ad interim stay order that the order dated 21.6.1981 should not be given effect to. On 19.9.1981 the Tribunal passed an order that 12.10.1981 be fixed for hearing of the stay matter and till then status quo as prevailing on that day be maintained. This stay ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »