Allahabad Court November 1989 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.
Mangal Sen Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR161]; (1992)ILLJ179All; (1990)1UPLBEC114
ORDERB.N. Misra, J.1. Having been dismissed from service and having lost his appeal and also his case before the Public Service Tribunal, the petitioner seeks relief from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was working as a peon in the City Board of Muzaffarnagar in a permanent cadre. On June 30/ July 1, 1972 he was on duty between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m. at Toll Tax Chauki No.3 at Shamli Road along with two other peons and a munshi. In course of the night it was reported that the petitoner had unauthorisedly released 9 out of 18 bags of grapes belonging to one Sri Vishnu without charging octroi duty on the same in collusion with his colleagues. Thereafter respondent No. 3, Chairman, City Board, Muzaffarnagar issued the charge-sheet (Annexure 7) on the allegation that on account of his lapse, there was loss of revenue. In his reply (Annexure 8) the petitioner explained that Sri Vishnu had paid the octroi duty on 9 bags around 11.30 p.m. while the petitioner was b...
A.C. Datt Vs. Rajiv Gandhi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All38
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. There are some writ petitions which must be dealt with at thethreshold. This is one such writ petition. The pendency of such a petition in the High Court could lead to a misunderstanding of this institution which works under the Constitution and may embarrass the position of the Court. There are certain mitters which the constitution of India does not permit this Court to enquire into. These are matters which are exclusively to the business of the legislature, and yet there are certain matters which are the business of the Courts. The two ought not to mix. This in short is a very delicate balance which the executive, Legislature and the judicial institutions will have to respect; a discipline which must be adhered to notwithstanding whether it is written in the Constitution or has or will evolve by convention.2. The petitioner is an Advocate of theHigh Court and has presented the writ peti-tion in person. No court-fee has been paid onthe writ petition as, the ...
Krishi Uptadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly Vs. Vith Additional District Jud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All136; (1990)1UPLBEC262
ORDER1. Petitioner, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly has preferred this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 4-7-87 and 14-8-87 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 1 respectively.(2) The facts, in detail, are that respondents 3 to 10 filed a civil suit No. 293 of 87 in the Court of respondent No. 1 for an injunction restraining the petitioner from suspending or cancelling the licence or refusing to renew their licence in pursuance of the order dated 24-4-87 and for the realisation of the market fee as demanded by the petitioner w.e.f. 1-4-80 to 30th June, 84:An application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil P.C. was also filed.In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it was alleged that respondents held valid licences issued by the petitioner under Section 9 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and in pursuance thereof...
D.C.M. Ltd., Daurala Sugar Works Vs. S.K. Sinha, Excise Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1331
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed by the applicant DCM Limited, Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala against Sri V. R. Sinha, Excise Commissioner, U. P. Allahabad for punishing the opposite party for wilfully disobeying the writ, issued by this court by judgment and order dated 31st January 1977 passed in Writ Petition No. 419 of 1975 and judgment dated 28th July 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 976 of 1985.2. This application was admitted on 19-1-1987. It so transpires that the applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 419 of 1975 before this court challenging the legality and validity of export duty levied on rectified spirit and Indian made foreign liquor, by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of the Notifications issued under Section 28 and 29 of the U. P. Excise Act, 1910. This writ petition was allowed by this court vide judgment dated 31st January 1977 with a direction that the Government of U. P. shall refund t...
Kahkashan Bano Vs. Abdul Moiz Ansari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC495
A.N. Dikshita, J.1. Smt. Kahkashan Bano being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 8-9-1988 of learned District Judge, Basti, allowing the application in Misc. Case No. 60 of 1987 Abdul Moiz Ansari v. Smt. Kahkashan Bano filed by the respondent under Sections 25 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with the Personal Muslim Law for the custody of a minor and directing that the child shall be given to the custody of the respondent within fifteen days has preferred this appeal.2. Facts as revealing from the petition are that the respondent filed a petition under Sections 12 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (hereinafter called 'The Act') against the appellant, Smt. Kahkashan Bano on 4-12-87 for being given the custody of the child, Mohd. Shoaib, to him. It was stated in the petition that the respondent married the appellant on 18-11-79 ond his son (Mohd. Shoab Ansari) was born out of this wedlock. The respondent divorced the appellant on 27-12-81 and consequent to this d...
Hiralal and Etc. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ689
Giridhar Malaviya, J.1. These three petitions have : been filed by Sri Hira Lal, Harbansh and Munna Lal who have all been detained by separate orders of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 29-3-1989 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act on the ground that the petitioners were affecting the maintenance of public order.2. The main contention of Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar learned counsel for the petitioners is that the detention order must fail as the activity of the petitioners is not referable to a problem of the maintenance of public order but is confined to the problem of law and order. Since in all the three petitions one of the activities of the petitioners was of 3rd. March, 1989 and was the common activity, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he was confining his arguments in respect of this activity alone because if he could not succeed in proving that the activity dated 3-3-1989 of the petitioners was not an activity connected with the maintenan...
U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. Vs. Chandrawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ406
N.N. Mithal, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura, dated 4th February, 1980 by which he has disposed two Claim Petition Nos. 64 and 65 of 1978. Both the claim cases arise out of the same accident.2. The relevant facts are that on 15th February, 1978, jeep No. UTR 7073 belonging to Vrajlal Manilal & Co. of Agra and driven by Sripal was proceeding from Agra to Mathura, bus No. UTH 4366 belonging to the appellant Corporation was coming from Delhi and was proceeding towards Agra on the main G.T. Road, at a place known as Kurkunde-ki-Pyao between Mathura and Agra about 20 km. off Mathura, the said jeep and the bus collided in which the driver of the jeep Sripal and one of the passengers Amarnath lost their lives. Amarnath was thrown out of the jeep due to the impact and due to severe head injuries and fracture of the ribs he died on the spot. The driver of the jeep, however, was seriously injured and died on way to the hospita...
Chunnu Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1057
S.I. Jafri, J.1. This appeal in hand was presented before me on behalf of Chunnu appellant by the Pairokar of the appellant at my residence during the period of strike by the lawyers of Allahabad High court on 4-9-1989 in which the appellant had impugned the judgment and order dated 9-8-1989, passed by Asstt. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 59 of 1989 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years.2. Having regard to the report of the office of the High Court on the question of maintainability of the appeal, the aforesaid appeal was admitted by this Court and a notice was directed to be issued to the State of U. P. Notices were also directed to be issued to Chunnu appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why the sentence of 5 years' S.I. recorded by the trial Court be not altered to that of 5 years R.I. inasmuch as that the role attributed was that of firing resulting in injuries to two persons. At the time of a...
Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. M/S Shyam Lal Mahendra Kumar, Muza ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All129; (1990)1UPLBEC481
ORDER1. This Civil revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred against the order dated 9-3-1989, passed by Civil judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Original Suit No. 225 of 1987, M/s. Shyam Lal Mahendra Kumar v. Ghaziabad Development Authority', by which the application filed by the defendant for deciding the issue No. 8 regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue was rejected.2. Facts in a narrow compass are that the opp. party had filed a suit against the applicant for recovery of Rs.2,20,000/-. The written statement was filed on behalf of the applicant. In para 20 of the written statement, which is annexure 2 to the counter affidavit, it was categorically stated that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit and this plea was mentioned in detail in para 23 (Additional Pleas of the written statement).3. Para 23 of the written statement is detailed hereinbelow:--'That this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as all acts and transacts const...
Dr. Lavelina Chawla and Etc Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All179
ORDERS.H.A. Raza, J.(1) The petitioners, who have completed the MBBS Course from Lucknow University have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to admit them into the Junior Residency Scheme of Post-Graduate Classes in KGMC on the basis of merit list prepared by them. It was further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties commanding them to strike down clause IV (Kha) of the Government Order dated 22-8-1989 contained in annexure No. 11.(2) Clause IV(Kha) of the impugned Government Order stipulates that only those students of MBBS would be eligible for 75% quota, who had got admission into MBBS through CPMT examination conducted by the State Government. It was further provided that those students, who had been transferred from one Medical College to another Medical College within the State would be treated as students of the Medical College from where they had completed their last two professional e...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »