Allahabad Court May 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.
Nadir HusaIn Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All35
ORDER1. The Farrukhabad-Jarianpur via Ghatiaghat-Rajapur-Amritpur route (hereinafter referred to as the route) appears to be partly notified and partly non-notified. This Court, in a writ petition preferred by the petitioner and others, on 21st April, 1989, directed the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) to consider and dispose of the applications made by the petitioner and others for the grant of temporary permits on the route. In pursuance of this direction, the Secretary of the Transport Authority granted a temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the non-notified portion of the route and rejected the application for the notified portion on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit on that portion. The order rejecting the application for notified portion is being impugned in the present writ petition.2. Section 68F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) casts a m...
Rakesh Singhal and Another Vs. Vth Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Bu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All12
ORDER1. The present petition is directed against an order dated 17-8-1987 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Buland-shar dismissing the petitioner's revision.2. The petitioners filed a Suit No. 40 of 1985 for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction of the wall.3. The suit was filed on the ground that by means of Sale Deed dated 27-7-1981, they became the owners of the land shown by letters (Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ga, Ra). There was a way of 16 feet in width towards the north of their house and towards the north of that passage defendants' house was situated. Towards the West and South of the disputed passage is a main road connecting the same. This passage belonged to him and he has a right to raise the wall.4. An application for interim injunction was also moved on 25-10-1985.5. The learned Civil Judge granted the ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from obstructing the construction of the wall. On the basis of thi...
Nathaniel Masih Vs. U.P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corpn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR620]; (1991)IILLJ347All
U.C. Srivastava, J.1. The order of termination of services of the petitioner from the post of driver passed by the Managing Director of the U.P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as driver in the Corporation and was drawing salary of less than Rs. 500 per month. His services were terminated by giving him one month's salary. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that he is workman and the opposite party No, 1 being industry the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-N and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (which are analogous to Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act) are attracted and as the petitioner has completed more than 240 days of continuous service and juniors to him have been retained, his termination amounts to retrenchment without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.3. On b...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Regional Office, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All95
ORDER1. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of 1987 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional Office, Bareilly. He was allotted Roll No. 137715. He appeared in the said examination. He was not caught using unfair means, but his result has been cancelled on the ground of suspicion, namely, that since he did not do any rough work, therefore, the result has been cancelled. The mere fact that a candidates does not do rough work, is no ground for cancelling his result. It is usual that a candidate learns the answer by heart and then relates the same in the examination. No rule nor any other provision has been shown to us that in every case rough work must be done. The Board has acted wholly without jurisdiction in cancelling the examination of the petitioner merely on the ground that no rough work has been done. It may be observed that this type of action by the Board has resulted in lot of harassment not only to this petitioner but to ot...
Peacock Chemicals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(All)159; [1990]182ITR98(All); [1990]51TAXMAN317(All)
1. The short question of law is whether the order of transfer passed under Section 126 of the Income-tax Act suffers from any error of law.2. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is registered under the Companies Act. Its head office is situated at 8/7, Industrial Area Site No. 4, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. During the investigation of the account books of Goel Gases (P.) Ltd., 136-M, Connaught Place, New Delhi, a number of correspondence between the two companies were found. Therefore, survey of business premises at 8/7, Industrial Area Site No. 4, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, was made. Since from the investigation and survey it transpired that the petitioner was a sister concern of Goel Gases, notice under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act for transfer of the case of the petitioner to New Delhi for a detailed and proper investigation was issued. It was objected to by the petitioner and it was claimed that it should have been informed of the material on the basis of which the opposite p...
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Karyalaya Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: [1990]78STC417(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), are directed against the judgment and order dated 29th January, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, allowing the appeal of the assessee in part relating to the assessment year, 1985-86. The assessee is a Corporation of the State Government known as U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad which has been established under the provisions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam. It is controlled and supervised by the State Government. It was carrying on the work of the construction of residential houses and is also acquiring, holding and disposing of the immovable property. That the assessee with a view to discharge its duties regarding acquisition of the land and construction of the buildings, entered into contracts with various contractors who have constructed the buildings/houses in accordance with the specifications and the directions of the asse...
Ram Bilas Dwivedi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ677
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J.1. The applicants being accused in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 1982 State v. Swami Rangacharya and Ors. (for short the Trial) under Sections 307/337, I.P.C. pending in the Court of Sri Nepal Singh, Special Judge Saharanpur, have filed present application for transfer of aforesaid trial to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, u/s. 407, Cr. P.C. (for short the Code).2. Factual metrics can be stated succinctly. The trial was pending since 1982. The prosecution evidence was concluded on 8-6-88 on 14-6-88 was the date fixed for recording statements of the accused u/s. 313 of the Code. The case was adjourned on several dates on the applications of the accused. The statement of the accused could be recorded on 6-9-88. Thereafter on several dates adjournments were taken for furnishing defence evidence which could be furnished on 14-10-1988. The arguments appear to have been heard in part on 2-1-1989. Thereafter 30-1-89 was the date fixed for arguments. On that date lear...
Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC421(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The facts giving rise to these revisions are that the assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Ramji Bhai Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay. It has a factory in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Clutterbukganj, in the district of Bareilly where it carries on the business of manufacture of match boxes. The Bareilly unit of the assessee is registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act'). During the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 the assessee opened a branch at Allahabad, which was being supervised by the assessee's Calcutta office. Under some legal advice the Calcutta office got the Allahabad branch registered separately as a dealer under the Act. The Allahabad branch had some depots in the eastern Uttar Pradesh. It has been alleged by the assessee that the Bareilly factory which was separately regi...
Vivek Kumar Vyas Vs. Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All17
ORDER1. This petition, at the instance of a student, stems from the refusal of the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) to admit the petitioner in the undergraduate (Paint Technology) course. Three steals for the admission of undergraduates in the Institute were allocated to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. One was in Food and Technology, the other was in paint technology and the third was in Leather Technology.2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner and the institute. The petition is ripe for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties we arc proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner could not be interviewed for admission by 31st Aug. 1988. The said date, according to the Institute, was the dead line set up by the Institute for making admissions. It has fortified its case by placing reliance upon the proceedings of the meeting of the Faculty of Engi...
Satya Prakash and anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1989All220
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 28-10-1988 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Farrukhabad by which an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed by the applicants has been allowed.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. Palpably the revision is so ill-merited that it does not require even a detailed order.However, this Court in the case of Kamal Regmi Sharma v. Nepal Bank Ltd. and others, 1987 All LJ 349, has held that the Courts are required to be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the pleadings. Further it is the settled law that the admission made by the parties may be withdrawn or explained away. The Court below has exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment. It does not require any interference, as no cogent reasons or compelling circumstances have been set forth. Neither any serious injustice nor any irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the applicants by allowing this amendment. Neither the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »