Allahabad Court August 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.
Small Steel Re-rolling Mills and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC184
ORDER1. By the Court - Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, we do not consider that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Act. In case the petitioner files an appeal we would direct the appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with the law within a period of two months from the date of filing after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard.2. Subject to above observation, this writ petition is disposed of....
Padohi Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ495
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. This application under Section, Cr. P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Case Crime No. 44 of 1985 under Sections 419/420/467/120-B, I.P.C.2. Facts in brief are that one Balihari s/ o Jokhan r/o Jungle Jhanjhwa, P. S. Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur is the owner of some agricultural land. It is alleged that Padohi and others forged signatures of Balihari with the intention to usurp his agricultural land. Padohi and others hatching a conspiracy impersonated and forged documents to deprive Balihari of the land.3. On coming to know of it Balihari filed an application before the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereupon a case was registered at P. S. Pharenda. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed. Meanwhile Padohi and others slipped away from their houses and ultimately surrendered themselves in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur who granted the bail. Thereafter, Bal...
The British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ319All
ORDERR.R. Misra, J.1. The British India Corporation Ltd., petitioner, is a Government of India Corporation and is running a Woollen Mill known as 'Cawnpore Woollen Mills Branch, popularly known as Lal Imli'. In the Weaving Department of the said Mill there are employees known as Checkers, who were being paid wages on piece-rate and daily wage basis. The said Checkers raised a demand for payment of wages on monthly rate basis. Accordingly the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 82 of 1972 before the Industrial Tribunal. The said Tribunal gave an award holding that the workers were not entitled to monthly wages. Aggrieved against the award aforesaid, the workers filed a Writ Petn. No. 8093 of 1972 in this Court, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3rd May 1978. The Industrial Tribunal was directed to rehear and decide the dispute according to law after giving the parties...
Sakil Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ497
H.C. Mital, J.1. The above three appeals arise from a commonjudgment in S.T. No. 38 of 1977 State v. Sakil and Ors. dt. 5th Mar.. 1979 passed by Sri B. B. Sisodia, III Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 395 read with Section 397, I.P.C. to seven years R.I. each.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16-5-1976 Hafiz Muneer Ahmad had gone to Khetasarai to realise money from his customers and was returning from there at about 7 p.m. to his village. At about 8 p.m. when he reached Sabrahad Chatti, he took tea at the tea stall of Abdul Jabhar and thereafter at about 8.30 p.m. he proceeded to his village on his bicycle through the Kuchcha road. It is alleged that he was having a torch with him. His bag containing Rs. 920/ -, towel, papers of account and invitation card was hanging on the handle of his bicycle. It is further alleged that at about 8.45 p.m. when he reached near the culvert on that Kuchcha road, six miscreants ambus...
Comet Filaments (India) Ltd. Vs. Pradeshya Industrial and Investment C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas124(All)
R.P. Singh, J.1. This plaintiff's first appeal arises from order against the judgment and order dated August 22, 1987, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, dismissing the applications for interim injunction and vacating the interim injunction passed on February 24, 1987.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed Suit No. 21 of 1987 in the court of the District Judge, Tehri, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from recovering Rs. 70,64,360.67 with the allegations, that with a view to establish a filament factory at Tapovan in the district of Tehri Garhwal, the plaintiff company was granted a loan by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 31 86 lakhs. The building, machines, tools and plants were mortgaged by the plaintiff as security for the loan. The plaintiff's case further was that since the subsidy that was promised by the State to the plaintiff was not released, the plaintiff could not procure the raw material and suffered hug...
Hira Devi and ors. Vs. Harinath Chaurasiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All11
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1988 (Ann. 6), 14-4-88 (Ann. 8), 24-12-87 (Ann. 5) and 20-5-77 (Ann. 3), passed on the objections taken by the judgment-debtor, the petitioners, in execution proceedings in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the contract which was decreed and the decree became final against the petitioners.2. The aforesaid decree was put in execution by respondent No. 1. The petitioners, judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. (for short the Code) stating that the suit was barred by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act), as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not allege in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence the suit could not have been decreed and the decree itself was without jurisdiction and nullity, hence the execution application could not be a...
Mohd. Sharif Mohd. Amir and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC90
ORDERR.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 9-8-1983 and 18-10-1985 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut and Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi respectively. Copies of these orders have been annexed as Annexures 11 and 13 to the writ petition. 2. M/s. Mohd. Sharif Mohd. Amir had been carrying on a business of khandsari sugar and had obtained a central excise licence for manufacture of khandsari sugar in their factory at Fatehullahganj, Thakurdwara. They were allowed to manufacture khandsari sugar in their factory at Fatehullahganj, Thakurdwara. They were allowed to manufacture khandsari sugar under special procedure on a centrifugal machine of size 22.9. x 45.7 cms. during the khandsari season 1977-78. On 17-4-1978 the Central Excise Officer of Moradabad Division, Moradabad visited their factory at 10 30 a.m. and found the factory working, some freshly manufactured sugar was lying on the d...
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ250All
B.L. Yadava, J.1. By present stay application, petitioner, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, has prayed that the implementation of the impugned award dated 22nd July, 1987, published in the notice board of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, on 22nd July, 1987, in Adjudication Case No. 280 of 1985 between Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Basti, and Mohan Lal Kesharwani be stayed during pendency of the writ petition in this Court.2. A short portrayal of essential facts appears imperative. The petitioner was an employer and the respondent No. 3, Mohan Lal Kesharwani, wasa workman working as a clerk/cashier under the petitioner-Bank. His services were governed by the U.P. Co-operative Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. He was appointed on different dates for fixed period of 3 months. His services, however, were terminated or retrenched on 10th January, 1980. He raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the State of U.P. for adjudication, under Section 4(k) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, ...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. 3rd Additional District Judge, Moradabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All162
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the orders D/-16-5-88 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Moradabad and the order D/- 13-8-87 passed by the Munsif, Chandausi, Moradabad, on the application under 6. 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. (for short the Code) filed by the decree-holder, respondent 3 in a suit for ejectment from the accommodation in dispute are sought to be quashed.2. The petitioner is son of the Sheo Shankar, who was a party to the suit No. 241/66 filed by respondent No. 3 for the ejectment of Sheo Shankar and one more person. That suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise (43-Ka). To execute that decree an application was filed by respondent 3 (Execution Case No. 200/72). In that application prayer was that the ejectment of judgment-debtor may be effected and the amount in the decree may be paid to decree-holder. Parwana Dakhal was issued. On that the Amin made a report that without the assistance of police no effective ex...
Sheo Kumari and ors. Vs. Shee Raj Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC613
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:2. One Debi Prasad died in motor accident on 26th June 1982 by a Truck No. USM 6273. The widow and the children of Debi Prasad. who are the appellants before this Court, filed a claim petition No. 11 of 1983 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In this claim petition, the matter was compromised between the parties and it was stipulated that Rs. 5,000/-will be paid by the owner of the truck, who is respondent No. 1, Shee Raj Bahadur Singh and if the owner produces papers in regard to the insurance of the truck in question, the New India Insurance Company Limited will be liable to pay Rs. 20,000/-, who is respondent No. 3. Ineffect, by the Compromise, the claimants were to get a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.3. On 31st January, 1987, the court specifically directed respondent No. 1 to supply the details of the insurance. This was not supplied. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›