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.
Vishwa Nath Jiloka and ors. Vs. Ist Munsif Lower Criminal Court and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2082
ORDERS.R. Bhargava, J.1. The petition, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has arisen from a complaint.2. Petitioners Vishwa Nath Jiloka, Amar Nath Jiloka and Shambhoo Nath Jiloka are real brothers and are residents of Patna. Opposite party No. 2 Prem Narain Pandey is a resident of Bahraich. Opposite Party No. 2 Prem Narain Pandey filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for offences under Section 420/406 I.P.C. with the allegations that on 14th June, 1986 he met the petitioners at Nanpara Railway Station and during talks petitioners introduced themselves to him. They represented themselves to be respectable Brahmins and told the purpose of their visit as search of a groom for their daughter. Opposite party No. 2 believed the representation of the petitioners and told them about Narendra Kumar, unmarried brother of his brother-in-law gainer (sic). They talked about mutually seeing the girl and the born 15th June, 1986. On that day, opposite party No. 2 along with his family members a...
Prakash Security Devices (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1989
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT635(All)
1. The petitioners are engaged in assemblage of a system/device which on installation and attachment to the buildings operates as 'Fire-Alarm'. The petitioners being aggrieved by disapproval of classification list, filed an appeal against the order dated 29-9-1987 before the Collector, Central Excise, and in the memorandum of appeal, it was mentioned that the order was served in November, 1987. The Collector, however, dismissed the appeal on 30-11-1988 on the ground that the appeal having been filed on 4-2-1988 against the order dated 29-9-1987, was not maintainable under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, which reads as under :-'Section 35 Appeals to Collector (Appeals) :-(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise officer, lower in rank than a Collector of Central Excise, may appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) [hereinafter this Chapter referred to as the Collector (Appeals)] within three months from the date ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›