Allahabad Court October 1991 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.
Swantantra Bihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. the State of U.P. and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All196; (1992)1UPLBEC168
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Petitioner is a housing co-operative society registered as such under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies' Act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 25-7-1990 and 12-7-1990 (Annexures 3 and 4 respectively to the writ petition). The order dated 12-7-1990 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is an order issued by the State Government under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (herinafter referred as the 'Stamp Act') read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, withdrawing the exemption from stamp duty chargeable on instruments executed in favour of any housing Co-operative Societies registered or deemed to be registered under, any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force with effect from 15th July, 1990. The order dated 25th July, 1990 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is in the nature of a circular issued by ...
Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ35All
B.M. Lal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay his salary.2. In short the case of the petitioner is that he is employed as a clerk in the Sales Tax Department, and was posted at the relevant time at Chandausi. By order dated October 6, 1986 he was transferred from Chandausi to Bareilly, in pursuance whereof he joined at Bareilly on October 10, 1986. However Just after ten days on October 20, 1986 he was again retransferred from Bareilly to Chandausi. This order of transfer was also complied with by him and he joined at Chandausi on November 10, 1986. Again on January 12, 1987 the petitioner was transferred from Chandausi to Moradabad and he accordingly joined at Moradabad on January 27, 1987.3. It is complained that since July 1, 1986 the petitioner is not receiving his salary. He made representation after representation, but of no avail, and hence this petition seeking a writ as stated abo...
Hari Saran Verma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(42)LC312(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeeva Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the legality and validity at the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur on 27.5.1991 under the provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act.2. On the basis of credible information received, the officers of D.R.I., New Delhi intercepted and searched the two petitioners on 11.10.1988 at Mathura Railway Station and recovered from them, in all, 100 foreign gold biscuits. Their statements were recorded on that occasion and subsequently their residential and business premises were also searched. On the basis of the material gathered a show cause notice was issued to both the petitioners on 29.3.1989 calling upon them to show cause why the said gold should not be confiscated and why the penalties should not be imposed under the aforesaid two enactments. In response to the show cause notice the petitioners submitted their explanations which were considered and under a very elaborate order, the Collector, ...
Indian Oil Shramik Sangh and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ757All
A.N. Varma, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I find no merit in the petition. The main question raised in the petition is whether the appropriate Government in this case authorised to make reference was the Central Government or State Government. 2. The Industrial Tribunal has elaborately dealt with this issue and on a consideration of the notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act and other relevant facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the appropriate Government in this case is Central Government, 3. For the petitioner, however, it is urged that inasmuch as liquid a petroleum gas industry has not been included among the 'Controlled Industry' in the Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2(a)(i), the Indian Oil Corporation (L.P.G. Plant) cannot legally be regarded as a controlled industry under that provision. 4. I ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›