Allahabad Court October 1988 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.
Brij Kishore and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ616
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This is a matter which concerns the death of one Smt. Rajeshwari, wife of Brij Kishore and daughter-in-law of Basdeo and Smt. Kailasiya which took place in the night between 1st and 2nd of May, 1976 between 12 mid night and early morning hours and a FIR of this occurrence was lodged by Ram Karan Singh, brother of the deceased at 4.15 p.m. on 2-5-1976 at P.S. Lalabli. Prior to that the villagle chokidar Mahavir had already given an information vide Ex.Ka-2 at 11.00 a.m. on 2nd May, 1976. On the basis of information received from Basdeo about the suicide allegedly committed by Smt. Rajeshwari.2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that Smt. Rajeshwari was married to Brij Kishore about five years prior to this occurrence and they were childless. There is some mention of the fact in the statement of Brij Kishore that she had once aborted. That may or may not be true but it remains that they had no child. Ram Karan Singh (P.W. 1) who is the first informant of this c...
Abilities (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC386(Allahabad)
1. Upon hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, we dispose of this writ petition finally with the following directions:1. The respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the stay application made by the petitioner (Annexure A-7 to the writ petition) within two weeks from the date a certified copy of our order is produced before him by the petitioner.2. Until the disposal of the aforesaid stay application ; the recovery proceedings will not be enforced against the petitioner.3. The petitioner will be heard by the respondent No. 4 on the detention order dated 29.9.1988 (Annexure A-13 to the writ petition) and after hearing that can be maintained only to the extent, the detention is necessary to satisfy the outstanding demand arising from the order dated 7.3.1988 (Annexure A-5 to the writ petition). The balance of the goods detained will be released to the petitioner.2. A copy of this order may be given to the petitioner, today on payment of usual charges. The petitioner will produce a copy o...
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Cus ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC333(Allahabad)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed that a suitable direction be issued, declaring that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is not applicable to the petitioner. It is informed by the petitioner that it has received a show cause notice dated 21st June, 1988 from the respondents. The petitioner may file reply against the aforesaid show cause notice within three weeks and appear before the respondent concerned who shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible. The concerned respondent will also consider the representations made by the petitioner earlier on 17th May, 1985 and 13th June, 1985 being Annexure-3 and 6 respectively to the writ petition.3. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of finally.4. So far as the adjudication proceedings or any recovery proceedings are concerned, the petitioner may approach the respondents, requesting them that the proceedings may not be taken against the petitioner till the decision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›