Allahabad Court October 1994 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.
Hardev Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1652; I(1995)DMC623
O.P. Jain, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of staying further proceeding in the case and for dismissing the application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 3. Smt. Maya Devi against the applicant.2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant Hardev Singh is the husband of respondent No. 3 Maya Devi who filed an application Under Section 123 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband. The applicant did not appear before the Court below and, therefore, the Court proceeded ex parte and on 25.4.91 Hardev Singh was ordered to pay Rs. 500/- per month to Smt. Maya Devi and Rs, 300/- per month to his daughter Chandrawati and Rs. 200/- per month for the maintenance of his son Anek Singh. It appears that the amount was not paid by the applicant and, therefore, recovery proceedings have started against the applicant. Under these circumstances Hardev Singh has filed the present application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the app...
Mahesh Babu Saxena Vs. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: I(1996)DMC594
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision by the husband has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1989 passed by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 110 of 1987 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance w.e.f. 6.11.1987 the date when the application for maintenance allowance was filed. The revisionist had also filed an application, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. In these proceedings the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 250/-per month as interim maintenance allowance to the opposite party No. 2. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was granted to meet the expenses in defending the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.2. The Trial Court while fixing the maintenance allowance also took into consideration the sum of Rs. 250 /- per month granted to her as interim maintenance allowance by the District Judge, Rewa and upon consi...
Hardev Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC624
O.P. Jain, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for staying further proceeding in the case and for dismissing the application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 3, Smt. Maya Devi against the applicant.2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant Hardev Singh is the husband of respondent No. 3, Maya Devi who filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband. The applicant did not appear before the Court below and, therefore, the Court proceeded ex-parte and on 25.4.1991 Hardev Singh was ordered to pay Rs. 500/- per month to Smt. Maya Devi and Rs. 300/- per month to his daughter Chandrawati and Rs. 200/- per month for the maintenance of his son Anek Singh. It appears that the amount was not paid by the applicant and, therefore, recovery proceedings have started against the applicant. Under these circumstances Hardev Singh has filed the present application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the...
Babu Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1188
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. The three appellants were found guilty of offence under Section 302/34, IPC in Sessions Trials No. 120 of 1977 and 337 of 1977 by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge. Aligarh and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, IPC. There was another co-accused, Raja Ram, who had faced a separate trial subsequently for the same charge and was also convicted to sentence equally. This Raja Ram has moved a separate appeal before this Court and the said appeal stood abated on the death of Raja Ram, after filing of the appeal.2. According to the prosecution story, these three present appellants and Raja Ram had committed murder of one Onkari, who was husband of appellant Vimla, on the night between 15th and 16th December, 1976. The death, according to medical evidence, was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation. The appellants denied the allegations and alleged false implication against them. In the appeal all the three appellants are reported to be on ...
Smt. Rukmini Jaiswal Vs. Sri Balhans Jayaswal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All319
1. This is an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the abatement and substitute the appellant in place of her deceased husband who had filed a suit which has since been dismissed for non prosecution. Case of appellant is that after coming to know from tenant of the disputed house that there was a litigation in respect of the house initiated by her husband she filed the petition to continue the suit which had been dismissed for abatement. Her case is that her relationship with her husband was strained and she was residing at Allahabad. Coming to know about the illness of her husband she came to Dehradun where shortly after her husband expired. She is illiterate and aged 82 years and had no knowledge about the litigation. Accordingly she should get chance to continue the suit.2. Defendant No. 2 who is son-in-law of appellant filed an affidavit purporting to be an objection to the application of appellant. Defendant No. 4 also filed an objection contesting the application. Thus ...
Umakant Yadav Vs. Superintendent of District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ906
R.B. Mehrotra, J. 1. By means of the present habeas corpus petition, the petitioner has challenged his detention in District Jail, Azamgarh and has also prayed for quashing of the first information report dated 11 -9-1993, on the basis of which a case Crime No. 86/1993 has been registered against the petitioner for investigation of an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 3(1) of U. P. Gangesters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The first information report dated 1.1-9-1993, which is sought to be quashed in the present proceedings, is to be looked into for the purposes of examining the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel seeking its quashing.3. The first information report has been filed by the Station Officer, Didarganj, district Azamgarh. The report reads, that the records available in Police Station Didarganj, have been looked into and from the perusal of t...
TIn Manufacturing Co. of India Vs. Central Warehousing Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT129(All)
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following reliefs have been prayed :-i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the demand for payment of warehousing charges amounting to Rs. 4,11,612.50 by the respondent in its letter No. CN/MNR/IMC/90-91/166, dt. 22-5-1990 (Annexure 17)ii. issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to deliver the goods of the petitioner warehoused under warrant of goods Book No., 00360 and S.I. No. 017984 to 017994 dated 23-10-1987,29-10-1987,26-10-1987,27-10-1987,28-10-1987,30-10-1987/12-11-1987 and 16-11-1987.iii. issue any other writ, direction or order which the petitioner may be found entitled to according to law andiv. award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is admittedly a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing of tin containers under the name and style of Tin Manufacturing Company of India...
Super Time Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT468(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 28th September, 1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad whereby it dismissed the petitioner's Appeal No. 214/CE/ MRT /94 for failure to deposit the duty demanded by the Collector.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri S.K. Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.3. No counter-affidavit is desired by the respondent to be filed and as agreed, the writ petition has been finally heard at the admission stage in accordance with the rules of the Court.4. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad, which was pending. In terms of Section 35F the petitioner was to deposit the duty demanded and in terms of the proviso to Section 35F the petitioner applied to the Collector (Appeals) to waive condition of pre-deposit. By an order dated 12th July, 1994 the petitione...
H. Guru Instruments (North India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1996(84)ELT418(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.H.A. Naqvi appearing for Union of India.2. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and also as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission even before exchange of affidavits.3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22-9-1994 passed by the Superintendent Central Excise Range-III Sahibabad and further a direction to respondents to lift the order of detention dated 22-9-1994 and also not to initiate recovery proceedings during the pendency of the stay/waiver application and the appeals already heard on 26-7-1994.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals before respondent Nos. 1 and 3 it is not proper for us to enter into merits of the contention raised in the writ petition. From the averments made in the writ petition it is revealed that the petitioner has alread...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›