Allahabad Court January 1990 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.
Parvez Quadar Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2072
Giridhar Malaviya, J.1. Petitioner Parvez Quadir Khan has been detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad since 3-1-1989 in pursuance of a detention order passed by Sri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 7-7-1989 Under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (New Act No. 46 of 1988 w.e.f. 8-9-1988). The allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are as follows :---2. On the basis of confidential information the officials of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi intercepted an auto rikshaw No. U HZ 648 corning from the side of Varuna bridge on l4-6-1988 at 9.50. hrs in front of the gate of Taj hotel near Taksal Cinema in the city of Varanasi. The petitioner and his associate one Raghu Nandan Sharma s/o Ram Ballabh were sitting in the auto rikshaw but as soon as the auto rikshaw was stopped by the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau they tried to run away towards north ...
Maharshi Avadhesh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All52
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner Maharshi Avadhesh also known as A. B. Shorewala, who has described himself as Founder-President of Rashtriya Party, has filed this petition seeking issuance of certain directions to the Prime Minister of India, the Union Home Minister, the Union of India and 'others concerned' in respect of the matters specified in the prayer clause. At the time of hearing the petitioner, who argued the case in person, elaborated the term 'others concerned' by submitting that notices of the petition may be issued also to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and to a sitting Judge of this Court who till recently was a Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The directions sought by the petitioner run into 19 clauses. In these clauses the petitioner seeks directions to hold inquiry or investigation into certain matters, directions to some holding high public offices to resign from the said offices, and directions to the concerned authorities to dismiss certain pu...
FaizuddIn Khan Vs. Haseena Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC140
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Smt. Haseena Begum, respondent No. 3 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She moved an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and that application, after contest, was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17-12-84 and a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/-was granted to the lady. The petitioner paid some amount in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate initially but thereafter payment was declined and the petitioner on 1-1-87 moved an application 19/B before the learned Magistrate on the ground that he has divorced respondent No. 3 and in view of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nothing is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18-12-87. A revision filed against this order has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated October 7, 1988....
Vinod Kumar Mittal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All1
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Deputy General Manager (L.P.G.) of the Indian OilCorporation Limited, Annexure 14, whereby he has cancelled/withdrawn the letter of intent dated 30th August 1986, Annexure 4, offering the petitioner distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas at Aminabad, Lucknow. The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.2. On 25th July, 1984 the Indian Oil porporation issued advertisement inviting applications for the distributorship in question. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the applicant should not be a near relation of an existing dealer or distributor of any oil company. The near relations were not specified on the advertisement itself but the advertisement indicates that they are mentioned in the pro forma on which application was to be submitted. In response to this advertisement the petitioner applied for the distributorship in question. Apart from thepetitioner others had also made a...
Siksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur and Others Vs. Registrar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All110
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, ACJ. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitutionhas been filed by Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur, Ghazipur, and others for quashing the order of the Registrar(respondent) passed under Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act.2. There is society at Ghazipur known as Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur, Ghazipur. The registration of the society was being renewed from year to year. On November 5, 1978, the general body of the society passed a resolution in accordance with rule 19 of the Bye-laws making certain amendments in the same. The amendment was sent to the Registrar under Section 4A of the Societies Registration Act for incorporating the same in the Register of the Bye-laws maintained by him. The amendment was consequently allowed by the Registrar on November 5, 1978 and thereafter intimation of incorporation was sent to the parties concerned on November 30, 1978 by ordinary post and by registered post on December 4, 1978. ...
Dina Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ195All
ORDERB.N. Misra, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Dina Nath Pandey has challenged the order dated 31st January, 1973 (Annexure - 9) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur and the order dated 7th August, 1973 (Annexure-11) passed by the Collector, Mirzapur dismissing the petitioner's appeal, the order dated 11th June, 1974 (Annexure-12) passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division dismissing the petitioner's revision application and the order dated 4th December, 1981 (Annexure-13) passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal-(1),Lucknow dismissing the claim application filed by the petitioner against the order terminating his service.2. Facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner was working as a Lekhpal at village Baraudi in tehsil Mirzapur. He was a permanent Government servant. On 19th October, 1972 a charge-sheet (Annexure-1) was served upon him asking him to show cause against five charges noted in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]182ITR436(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. The assessee along with his brother had purchased a leasehold plot at Ghaziabad and constructed a building thereon. The estimated investment in this property, according to the assessee, was to the extent of Rs. 2,86,836. The Department did not agree with the same and made its own estimate of construction. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on a consideration of the rival submissions, estimated the cost of construction at rupees three lakhs and disagreed with the figureof cost of construction of rupees five lakhs and odd as estimated by theCommissioner of income-tax (Appeals). Aggrieved, the Department filed anapplication for reference before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal whichwas rejected. Consequently, the present application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has been moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax.2. We have heard learned standing counsel. From a perusal of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that, while fixin...
Nihal Devi and ors. Vs. Raghuvir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC389; 1991ACJ1128
N.N. Mithal, J.1. Having heard Mr. Sushil Harkauli, learned counsel for the appellants, on the question of quantum of compensation awarded in this case, we are not satisfied that the order passed by the Claims Tribunal calls for any interference by this court. As a matter of fact after recording a finding that the total dependency of the family was Rs. 250/- per month the Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs. 84,000/- taking his longevity as 60 years. After making deduction of 30 per cent a sum of Rs. 58,800/- has been awarded. Since the claimants have already received Rs. 15,000/-under an interim award under Section 92-A, final award has been made for Rs. 43,800/-.2. Mr. Sushil Harkauli, in the first instance, submitted that the deduction of 30 per cent on account of lump sum nature of payment was not justified and only 20 per cent deduction should have been made. We do not think that there is any merit in this submission. The deceased was likely to live for another 28 years and the...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bhagwati Pawar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ73
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of U.P. challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in which one of the employees of the State itself was killed in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 30th May, 1986 the deceased Bishan Singh, forester, along with some official of the department was deputed on official duty and in that connection they were travelling in a departmental jeep No. UPH 6471. When the jeep reached unmanned railway crossing at Indra Nagar, Haldwani, it dashed against a running train as a result of which Bishan Singh, forester, died. The widow, son and the daughter of the said deceased filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation. 2. The State of U.P. contested the petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The State also disputed the amount of compensation claimed as being excessive. It was alleged tha...
State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Pawar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC396
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal by the Slate of U.P. challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which one of the employee of the State itself was killed in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 30th May, 86 the deceased Bishan Singh forester, along with some official of the department was deputed on official duty and in that connection they were travelling in a departmental Jeep No. UPH 6471. When the jeep reached unmanned Railway Crossing at Indra Nagar, Haldwani it dashed against a running train as a result of which Bishan Singh, forester died. The widow, son and the daughter of the said deceased filed claim petition under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of compensation.2. The State of U.P. contested the petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The State also disputed the amount of compensation claimed as being excessive. It was alleged that the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »