Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1991All368
ORDER1. The short question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether thewithholding of the result of the petitioner who had appeared as a student in the High School Examination held by the Board in the year 1989 is proper.2. The facts are that the petitioner Km. Geeta Verma alleges herself to be a regular student of Class X of S. M. Singh Inter-College, Baruabari, Ballia. Her case is that she, just as 76 other girl students, filled in the necessary forms for appearing at the High School Examination for the year 1989 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad. The result as indicated through the marks-sheet shows that the petitioner has passed the said examination in II Division. The photostat copy of the marks-sheet has been filed as Annexure-III to this writ petition. The original marks-sheet as issued to the petitioner has been filed during the course of hearing which may form part of the record.3. It appears that the Board has with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992(38)LC495(Allahabad)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India.2. By means of the present writ petition No. 1126 of 1991 and the other writ petition No. 1435 of 1990, both filed by the same petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.3.1991, Annexure IV to the writ petition No. 1126 of 1991 and the order dated 14.9.1990, Annexure-3 to writ petition No. 1435 of 1990. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is not related to M/s Poonam and Company and M/s Kharbanda Drugs Corporation. In these impugned orders the authorities have held that they are related. The petitioner has raised a number of grounds contending that the said finding is not sustainable, and further raised the question of limitation and power of issuance of notice by the Assistant Collector, we find from the averments made in writ petition No. 1126 of 1991 that the show cause notice was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ319
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. In writ petition No. 33280 of 1990 an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11-1-1991 directing as under:Until further orders the respondents are restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioners as panel lawyers. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to terminate the appointments of the petitioner in accordance with law.2. The grievance which the petitioner has made in this contempt petition is that the opp. party is not complying with the aforesaid order and has thus committed contempt of court and should be punished Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.3. In response to the notice the opp. party has appeared by filing the counter affidavit in which the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. Opp. party asserts that he has not disobeyed the aforesaid order.4. In order to understand the background history of the controversy it will be relevant to have some facts in brief. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1381
ORDERP. Basu, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Tikam against his conviction under Section 368, I.P.C. and the sentence of 4 years' R.I. passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, on 7-6-1979 in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 1973.2. It appears that four accused were tried in the aforesaid trial, namely, Tikam appellant, Shyam Sunder, Jagdish and Smt. Bishun Kumari. It is alleged that Smt. Bishun Kumari is the own Bhabhi (elder brother's wife) of P. W. 1 Jagdish. Accused Shyam Sunder and accused Jagdish are own brothers of Smt. Bishun Kumari. Accused Appellant Tikam is a relative of the three other accused. It is further alleged that according to the will executed by the father of Jagdish Prasad, P.W. 1, some property went to Jagdish Prasad and his other two brothers whereas some property went exclusively to Jagdish Prasad's son Yogesh (written as Yogendra in the charge and the judgment). The case of the prosecution is that the said child Yogesh was kidnapped by the three other acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1567
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. This appeal by Ram Charan has been filed against his conviction under Section 304, I.P.C. and the sentence of eight years' R.I. passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, on 31-5-1979 in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1978.2. The prosecution case in brief was that Ram Charan had executed a usufructuary mortgage of his land measuring about 8 bighas about 10 years ago in favour of Nanna deceased for a sum of Rs. 1200/-. This land was again mortgaged by him to Salamat, co-accused, for a sum of Rs. 2500/- and by the said amount he had purchased a tonga. Consequently Salamat and Ram Charan asked Nanna to surrender the land at which he said that when the amount was paid he would do so.3. On 31-6-1978 at about 9.30 p.m. P.W. 1 Mohd. Hanif, who is the sister's husband of deceased Nanna, was sitting in his house along with P.W. 3 Smt. Jameela, wife of Nanna and some others. The appellant Ram Charan and co-accused Salamat came there and told Nanna that the amount was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1992]198ITR695(All)
R.R. Mishra, J.1. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. In the said order of assessment, the assessee was shown as an individual and, besides dealing in purchase and sale of Mainpuri tobacco, the assessee also used to earn commission income on sale of lottery tickets. Admittedly, no account has been maintained by the assessee. For the year in dispute, the accounting period ended on March 31, 1972. On the lottery tickets sold by the assessee, he earned bonus of Rs. 60,000. Accordingly, a letter dated March 30, 1971, was received by the assessee from the Deputy Director, Lotteries, U.P., Lucknow, requiring him to appear before him on April 1, 1971 and collect bonus money. Admittedly, the bonus money was collected by the assessee after April 1, 1971. In this reference, it is not in dispute that, in so far as the commission on sale of lottery tickets is concerned, the assessee is liable to be taxed. The dispute between the parties in this reference centres round the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ368All; (1991)2UPLBEC1194
ORDERS.R. Singh, J.1.The petition in hand is for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated October 30, 1981 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur dismissing the petitioner, a Probationary Assistant Security Officer at Kanpur Office of the Bank from service in exercise of powers vested in him by Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 46 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations).2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Security Officer (on probation) by an order dated July 11, 1980 on starting basic pay of Rs. 900/- per mensem in the scale of Rs. 900-50-1000-55-1110-60-1230-65-1360-70-1430-EB-70-1500-75-1800, besides allowances indicated in the appointment order, on the basis of which his emolument per mensem was calculated to be Rs. 1767/- at the rate then in force.3. It appears that the petitioner married one Sushma Somal on Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All14
ORDERS.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioner, the President of a Municipal Board, approached this Court on 19th April 1990, as a motion of no-confidence in him was to be considered inthe meeting of the Board which was scheduled to be held on 21st April, 1990. On 19th March, 1990, a motion of no-confidence, which was signed by 10 members of the Board, along with the notice to move the same, was presented to the District Magis-trate upon an application made by the said signatories, they have been impleaded as respondents to this, petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf. A rejoinder-affidavit too has been filed. Though the petition has not been admitted as yet, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we heard it with a view to dispose it of finally and we are proceeding to do so.2. It is common case of the parties that some time before, when the notice together with the motion of no-confidence was presented to the District Magistrate the total membership of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(1992)DMC35
B.L. Yadav, J.1. These analogous First Appeal From Order and Civil Revision involve similar questions for determination hence it is convenience to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. This is defendant's (the mother of minor Rishabh Chhabra) First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule l(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short the Code) directed against the impugned orders dated 15.10.1990 and 7.9.1990 passed in Misc. Case No. 1l5 of 1990 arising out of proceedings under Sections 7 & 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (for short the Act).3. The factual matrix of the case is that Sri Vinay Chhabra husband of Smt. Savita Chhabra (for short the appellant) died in a motor accident leaving behind him his minor son Rishabh Chhabra. Thereafter, Ramjeet Chhabra real brother of deceased Vinay Chhabra and the uncle of the minor and a partner in the Firm got himself appointed as guardian of the person and' property of minor. When Smt. Savita Chhabra, mother of minor Rishabh Chhabra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992(40)ECC341; 1991LC497(Allahabad)
A.P. Misra. J.1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are disposing of this writ petition finally. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, decided the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,42,918-47P, under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, vide his order dated 16.7.1990. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said orders, filed an appeal on 17th October, 1990 and subsequently a waiver and stay applications dated 8th January, 1991. The appeal was preferred under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal vide its impugned orderdated 2nd July, 1991 partly waived the amount in question directing the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!