Allahabad Court April 1992 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.
Subhash Satya and Others Vs. Ram NaraIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1994All120
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1990 passed by Sri M.A. Khan, Civil Judge, Bahraich. Thefacts which are relevant for this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants of this appeal. In that suit application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved by the plaintiff-respondents. According to the plaintiff-respondents they have groves in village Belha Raghav and village Tilakpur. The defendant-appellants are owners of plot No. 5 M in village Belha Raghav and they are making preparations and digging for installation of one brick kiln. They are trying to give fire to the brick kiln. The groves of the plaintiff-respondents are situated at the distance of one kilometer from the alleged brick kiln. If the fire is induced in the brick kiln then on account of the smoke coming out of thechimney the mango crop belonging to the pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishwanath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(All)330; [1993]201ITR920(All); [1993]67TAXMAN92(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. It is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78, the assessee had sold certain agricultural lands allotted to its share on the family partition of a bigger Hindu undivided family that was effected by an arbitration award dated September 14, 19G9. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee admitted that it was liable to 'capital gains lax' as the agricultural lands transferred by it fell within the purview of 'capital asset' as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1970. However, in the computation of ' capital gains ', the assessee put forward a claim that it was entitled to deduct from the full value of the consideration received, the market value as on April 1, 1970, of the assets transferred, as cost of acquisition of the assets. The Income-tax Officer did not agree wi...
Anil Kumar Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1814
Palok Basu, J.1. Anil Kumar has filed the present Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the detention of the petitioner in case No. Nil of 1990 under Sections 104/111 and 135 of the Customs Act and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act pending in the court of the special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, be declared illegal and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.2. Along with this habeas corpus petition, Habeas Corpus Petition No. 7642 of 1992 between the same parties which Anil Kumar had preferred challenging his detention under the COFEPOSA was also heard. In that petition the petitioner's release was directed on the short technical ground that only about 2 weeks remained in the period of detention and, therefore, the merits of the matter were not gone into.3. It may only be relevant to state here that the petitioner was arrested on 6-11-1990 at 5-30 hrs. with contraband gold in his possession in Behraich. Since ca...
Raja Ram and Another Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All72
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation authorities by whichthe claim of respondent No. 4 has been accepted regarding his 1/2 share in the disputed khatas.2. The parties are related to each other as given in the following pedigree. Elan | Shital | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P | Ram ---------------- Bakshi | | | Parsan | | | Ganesh | | | Bodi | | | Mahadeo | Gaji | ------------------------------------- Rampher | | Angnu ------------------------------------- Raja Ram | Sita Ram | Jokhu3. The dispute relates to two khatas namely, Khata No. 215 and Khata No. 220 situate in village Noorpur, Pergana Sikandara district Allahabad. Even prior to the start of the consolidation operation in the village in question, there was litigation between the parties and their predecessors-in-interest regarding Khata No. 215. In the year 1958 Raja Ram and Sita Ram filed suit under S. 229B of t...
Raj Mohan Krishna Vs. the Second Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All40
ORDER1. Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. Durgesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, filed an application on 24-4-1985 against the petitioner for release of the premises bearing No. 273 (southern portion) Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which is in his occupation. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-11-1987. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was allowed by order dated 19-12-1988 by the IInd Addl. District Judge and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider the question of bona fide need afresh.3. One of the pleas raised on behalf of the tenant was that Drugesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, was not the landlord of the building and as such he had no right to file the release application. The learned IInd Additional District Judge decided this question against the petitioner and held that respondent No. 3 was th...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Central Govt. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR782]; (1993)IIILLJ860All; (1993)1UPLBEC470
S.C. Verma, J. 1. These petitions arc directed against the order dated 7.9.1 98 5 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Kanpur allowing the applications of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The retired officials of the Bank who claimed to be workman made their claim for i payment of special allowance to be added to their pension in accordance with the bi-partite settlement. There was a third bi-partite settlement in respect of the pay, dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance, special allowance, medical aid etc. The subject of matter of settlement has been quoted in paragraph (ix) of the Memo of Settlement which is reproduced below: '(ix) The parties, however, held bilateral negotiations and have arrived at a settlement in respect of scales of pay, Dearness Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Special Allowances, Medical Aid, Provident...
Smt. Rita Sharma and ors. Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Jawaharlal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ545All
M. Katju, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in ad hoc capacity as a teacher in Central School in July, 1984 and she worked till April 30, 1985. Thereafter she was again appointed in July, 1985 and worked till April 30, 1986. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed and continued upto January 23, 1988 whereafter she left Assam due to the transfer of her husband to Allahabad. She was again appointed as a teacher in Kendriya Vidhyalaya in ad-hoc capacity in October, 1988 and worked till April 30, 1989: She was again appointed in August 1989 and worked till April 30, 1990 after which her services have not been continued. The grievance of the petitioner No. 1 is that she should be continued as a teacher and her services should be regularised.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to regularisation under the relevant rules. Such regularisation is only done by the Head Quarters of the Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan at ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Balkishan Agnihotri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC504
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel representing the appellant-applicants and Sri P.R. Pal, learned Counsel representing the claimant-respondent.2. By means of this application dated 16th April, 1991, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, the applicants pray for modification of the orders dated 7th January, 1992 and 14th February, 1992 passed by this Court and grant of extension of time for making certain deposit directed by this Court.3. In claim petition No. III of 1988, decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat by means of its order and judgment dated 28th February, 1991, impugned in the Appeal, the appellant-applicants figured as opposite parties. The judgment and order dated 28th February, 1991 directs the appellant-applicants to pay to the claimant-respondent an amount of Rs. 25.000/- along with interest at die rate of 10 percent per annum. The appellant-applicants have challenged the order of the...
Prem NaraIn Son of Sri Hari Ram Vs. Sanjay Purwar Son of Omkar Nath an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All7
ORDER1. In Original Suit No. 15 of 1981, Sanjay Purwar v. Shiv Shanker Lal and others, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, the revisionist before this Court figures as defendant No. 3. He moved an application 586-C seeking permission to produce expert's evidence to prove that paper No. 546-A was in the handwriting of co-defendant No. 1, Shiv Shanker Lal. Along, with this he also moved application 595-C for summoning the co-defendant No. 1 to give his writing before the court for the purpose of examination thereof by an expert. These two applications of the defendant-revisionist have been rejected by means of the order dt. 12th Dec. 1991 which is under challenge in the instant revision.2. The Court had heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-revisionist, at length and in detail, and is clearly of the opinion that it will be wrong to interfere with the impugned order for thefollowing reasons.3. Firstly, the impugned order does not amount to a case wh...
Gorakh Nath Yadav Vs. Parshuram Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All27
ORDER1. By the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer dt. 25-7-1991 and of the District Judge dt. 22-1-1992. Sri Parsu Ram, respondent No. 1 filed his caveat and his counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Heard Sri S. K. Varma, counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. P. Singh, Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner contested the election ofPradhan of the Gaon Sabha. An election petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 Sri Parsu Ram Singh challenging the petitioner's election on the ground that he was less than 30 years of age on the date he had filed his nomination. The opposite party pleaded that petitioner was not qualified and eligible to contest the election of Pradhan. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer who is Election Tribunal under the Panchayat Raj Act and filed his written statement.3. The opposite party No. 1 pleaded in his election petition that date of birt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »