Allahabad Court November 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.
Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ320All
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and runs various industries including the Modi Banaspati Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. On 19.12.1990 there was some dispute between the management of the Company and the Trade Union Leaders, which resulted in lodging of two first information reports by the management and the trade union leaders against each other and suspension of 30 workmen of the Company by its management. From 21.12.1990, according to the Company, the workmen came to the Company s premises but did not discharge their duties on account of which there was complete halt in production; but according to the respondents trade unions although the workmen were coming to the Company's premises regularly but the production could not be carried on as 30 workmen, who were suspended, were technicians and in their absence it was not possible to operate the machines. However, on 27.1...
Chandra Prakash (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1308
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. On 22-10-1991 the present revision was filed in this Court which was reported as barred by time by 154 days and consequently an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved duly supported by an affidavit.2. A copy of the memorandum of revision as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying the affidavit were served on the Government Advocate on 10-10-1991. Consequently on 22-10-1991 the learned A.G.A. was granted time to file a counter affidavit, if any, within three days. Further time was granted for obtaining instructions on two more dates. Km. Nachced Moonis, learned A.G.A. for the State has stated that neither any instruction has come from Mathura nor anyone has approached on behalf of the State to file a counter affidavit in opposition in spite of intimation having been sent.3. Under the circumstances the grounds stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit were consid...
Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector Central Excise ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: 1993(45)LC92(Allahabad)
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the stay applications filed in two appeals pending before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise have not yet been disposed of and the demand is sought to be made against the petitioner. The further case is that one of the appeals of the petitioner has already been heard on merits. In the interest of justice we direct that the stay applications which are pending in both the appeals, shall be disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.3. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.4. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within two days....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›