Allahabad Court May 1988 Judgments
Sri Sugli Vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All247
ORDER1. Writ Petition No. 8827 of 1988 has been filed by Sugli, whereas Writ Petition No. 3745 of 1988 has been filed by Shri Nath. Both of these petitions raise common questions, hence they are being decided by a single Judgment.2. Sugli has claimed certiorari for quashing the advertisement published in the newspaper AMRIT PRABHAT dated 6-5-1988, inviting offers for the settlement of mining permit for Yamuna River Zone II. The relevant portion of his advertisement is being quoted below : --dk;kZy; ftykf/kdkjh] bykgkcknloZ lk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd tuinbykgkckn ds fuEu ckyw {ks= mRrj izns'k mi [kfut ifjgkj fu;ekoyh] 1963 dsv/;k;&5 mifo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fuEu leLr ckyw {ks=ks dks ekg ds fy, [kuuijfeV fn;s tkus ds fy, mi[k.Mksa ,oa thu ftudk fooj.k fuEu gS] muds lEeq[k vafdrfrfFk;ksa ij ^vkQj* vf/kdre ckyw {ks= [kuu ds fy;s vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gS A bllea/k es nSfud lekpkj i=ksa ^ve`r izHkkr* fnukad 17 vxLr] 1987 dh izdkf'krfoKfir esa leLr 'krksZ dk mYys[k gS] blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh lw...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Poonam Tandon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR403(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The only grievance raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner's jewellery has been seized in the month of October, 1987, and though an objection under Section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act has been filed by the petitioner on May 5, 1988, the same has not been disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow. It has also been urged that the objection by Shri Ram Tandon has been filed on March 10,1988.2. At the admission stage, we have heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, and the present writ petition is beingdisposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court.3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is pursuing the statutory alternative remedy by filing objection under Section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. It is expected that the Commissioner of Income-tax will decide the aforesaid objection at an early date. The petitioner may file a certified copy of our o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC416
B.L. Yadav, J.1. These two writ petitions, (Writ Petition No. 7866 of 1983 Union of India v. Smt. Ram Devi and Anr. (for short the first petition) and (Writ Petition No. 7867 of 1983 Union of India v. Smt. Rama Bai and Anr.), (for short the second petition), raise a common question of law and fact, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 18-3-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 80 of 1982 (Smt, Ram Devi v. Union of India), under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, (for short the Act), and the judgment and order dated 15-4-83 passed by the Claims Commissioner, Central Railway, Agra in Claim Petition No. 64 of 1982 (Smt. Rama Bai v. Union of India), under Section 82-A of the Act.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. There was a collision between 21 Dn. Dakshin Expr...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Pal Karan Kholi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All268
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are thirty nine in number have sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to charge from them the prices of the houses in excess of the prices originally fixed and to return to the petitioners the amount already recovered-from them in excess etc. 2. In the years 1979 and 1981 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, respondent No. 2, which is hereinafter referred to as Vikas Parishad, invited applications for registration for allotment of residential houses under various scheme's. In response, the petitioners got themselves registered under M.I.G., H.I.G. and L.I.G. houses scheme and deposited the registration fees. In 1979 the cost of the L.I.G. house, M.I.G. 'A' house, M.I.G. 'B' houses and H.I.G. house was stated to be Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-, Rs. 28,000/-to Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 46,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 80,000/-to Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively. In the year 1981 the prices of the ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Electronics Corpn. Karamchari Sangh Vs. Uptron India Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR842]; (1991)ILLJ316All
K.P. Singh, J. 1. A short question involved in this writ petition is where the notice contained in Annexure I, dated Ist March 1988, regarding change of weekly holiday from Wednesday to Sunday with effect from 6th March 1988, is bad in law and against the provisions of Section 4-1 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act read with the Third Schedule thereof. 2. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Section 4-I of the Uttar Pradesh Act reads as below: 'Notice of change: No employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Third Schedule, shall effect such change - (a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected, or (b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice: Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change - (i).......... (ii).........' The Third Schedule of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rama Shanker GuptA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)37; [1988]174ITR134(All); [1988]40TAXMAN116(All)
ORDER--Direction to enhance valuation--No basis--Report of valuation officer not available on record--Revision not justifiedHELD:The report of the valuation officer was not available on record, nor was there any other material to sustain the premise that there was any such appreciation in the value of that property. The Tribunal was hence clearly right in holding that there was no justification for the Commissioner to direct the WTO to adopt a new valuation or to enhance the value of the property. ...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All242
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The present revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage after serving the opposite parties. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The present revision is directed as against an order dated 19-2-1988 by which the trial Court has rejected the application of amendment in the plaint filed by the plaintiff-applicants. The plaintiffs-applicants moved an application before the trial Court for amendment in the plaint by virtue of which in the relief clause insted of defendants 2' to 6, defendants 1 to 6 were sought to be added. It was averred that it has occurred by typing error and instead of defendants 1 to 6, it has been typed as defendants 2 to 6. There is no other amendment sought. However, the court below rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that since the amendment seeking all the partners to give account is ne...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Radio and Television, Meerut and anr. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All257
ORDERA.P. Misra, J. 1. Defendants--applicants by means of this revision have challenged the order dated 29th January, 1987, passed by the trial court by virtue of which part of amendment to the written statement was rejected. 2. According to the applicants as also referred to in the application for amendment that later on it was found that by mistake the clause of specific denial and admission of the facts of specific defence has not been mentioned in the written statement, the written statement needs proper amendment; and the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit but is essential to elaborate the existing contention of the written statement. On the other hand, on behalf of plaintiff-respondent it was urged that by means of proposed amendment the defendants wantto wriggle out of the admissions and therefore, rejection of the part of the proposed amendment was justified and does not call for any interference. 3. The first leg of argument in this regard by the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR348(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has raised a grievance that although the pawned articles which had been seized had been ordered to be released, the amount, of bank guarantee which has been asked for is excessive in the sense that it includes the precise value of the pawned articles and the amount of interest also. It has also been alleged that an application has been moved before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range-II, Muzaffarnagar, for reconsideration of the matter on March 17, 1988, which has not been disposed of as yet by the aforesaid authority. 2. At the admission stage, we have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, and the present writ petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with the rules of thecourt.3. After hearing learned counsel for the purlins, we are of the opinion in view of the statement made by Sri Bharatji Agarwal, senior standing counsel, that...
Tag this Judgment!Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC257; 1988(18)LC393(Allahabad); 1989(39)ELT187(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The only grievance, which has been raised by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition, is that the demand of excise duty is being sought to be realised from the Petitioner, despite the fact that an appeal against the aforesaid demand has been preferred before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. It has been alleged in the Writ Petition that the Collector (Appeals) on the stay application, which had been filed by the Petitioner, had in fact stayed the demand of the excise duty subject to the Petitioner's furnishing Bank Guarantee for that amount for a period of six months ending on 8.5.1988. According to the Petitioner, the appeal has been heard by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, and the arguments have been concluded on 8.3.1988 and the orders have been reserved. However, till now the orders in the appeal have not been given by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise.2. On these facts it has been vehemently urged before us that there is no justifica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »