Allahabad Court November 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.
Ram Awadh Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC188; 1995ACJ996; [1995(70)FLR579]; (1995)IILLJ869All
S.R. Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated September 29, 1984 of the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur and raises substantial question as to scope and ambit of the appellate power of the Employees Insurance Court under Section 54A(2)(i) of the Act.2. Brief facts necessary to highlight the question involved in this appeal may be stated as thus: the appellant Ram Awadh, who is admittedly an insured person for the purpose of the Act, on August 19, 1982 sustained employment injury in his right eye which according to him resulted into permanent partial loss of vision of the injured eye to the extent of 6/24 as reported by Eye Specialist and accordingly he claimed 30% Permanent disablement benefit under the Act. The Medical Board in its decision dated February 28, 1983 found 'no functional loss' in the injured eye and further 'malingering test positive' and accordingly it held that the appe...
Sheo Balak Ram Ganesh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR148(All); [1995]79TAXMAN137(All)
O.P. Jain, J.1. The brief facts of Case No. 4730 of 1994 arc that the petitioner filed its return of income in the year 1987-88. While passing the assessment order, the Income-tax Officer added Rs. 74,000 and Rs. 69,300 as unexplained income. The asscssee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax who allowed it partly. Being dissatisfied the assessee-applicant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, where it is pending.2. On the basis of the additions made by the Income-tax Officer, penalty proceedings have been initiated and an appeal has been filed against the same. The penalty has been reduced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 26,000 by the Commissioner of Income-tax and an appeal is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Under these circumstances, a complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the court of the Special C. J. M., Allahabad.4. The facts in Case No. 4712 of 1994 are almost similar and need not be ment...
indraj S/O Desraj and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2804
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. Accused Indraj, Prabhu Dayal, Bhagwat, Birmi and Ombir have been convicted on a charge under Section 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and under Section 325/149, I.P.C. as regards Bhola Ram and Babu Ram, and further under Section 323/149, I.P.C. for the injuries caused to Harya, Prem Chand and Raj Bal. They have been sentenced to six years' R.I. on the first count (under Section 326/149, I.P.C); three years' R.I. on the second count i.e. under Section 325/149, I.P.C. and to six months' R.I. on the; third count respectively. Accused Indraj and Ombir have been further convicted for an offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. Accused Prabhu Dayal, Bhagwat and Birmi have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Co-accused Bundi died during the course of trial. Therefore his case abated. State has filed no appeal.3. Against the judgment and order dated ...
Durga Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Ram Lakhan and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All160
ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9-9-1994, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the auction sale dated 23-5-1985 has been set aside.2. The facts in brief are that Ramadhar, respondent No. 2 obtained a decree. He filed execution cast- No. 10 of 1983 against the judgment-debtor, respondent No. 1. After filing the execution application respondent No. 1 had deposited the decretal amount in seven instalments and the last date of its payment was 26-6-1985. Before the last date of payment, the property of respondent No. 1 was auctioned on 23-5-1985. The judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1 filed application (57C) before the Executing Court stating that he had deposited the entire decretal and penalty amount, as provided under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. the auction sale should be set aside. He further prayed that the tender forms along with application already filed by him be treated as application for setting aside the sale as required under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. The peti...
Vinod Khanna and Others Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All159
ORDER1. In these petitions the petitioners claim themselves to be the professional guides and under Article 226 of the Constitution they have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their working as professional guides. Further relief sought in these petitions is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 8 (d) of the Rules framed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.2. Since both the petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by a common order to which the learned counsel for the parties have no objection.3. Learned, counsel for the petitioners urged that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires in as much as it is repugnant to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Learned counsel elaborated this argument by saying that no criterion has been indicated in rule for grant of licence. As regards the guidelines relied on by the respondents, the learned counsel ...
Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC57
S.K. Verma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Case Diary and other relevant documents on record. The Post Mortem indicates that it is a case of hanging. It has been argued that the deceased was a lady of sensitive nature and she committed suicide for that reason. Sharad v. Maharashta, 1984 Crl.LJ 1738 has been cited and reliance has been placed on paragraph 40 to 45 and paragraph 180 of the same. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Babaji Charan Barik v. State 1994 Crl. LJ 1684 to show that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim must have been subjected to cruelty and harassment and there is no prima fade evidence of the same in this case. Reliance has also been placed on a decision in C. Veerudu and Anr. v. it has been argued that (i) the standards of proof of cruelty is higher in degree in criminal law than in civil law under the matrimonial causes, (ii) the intention or mens rea on the part of one spouse to injure t...
Shah Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT11(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 10th December, 1993, passed by the Customs, Excises and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on an application moved by the petitioner under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act praying that the condition of pre-deposit of the dues be waived. By the said order, the Tribunal declined the assessee's prayer and directed the petitioner to deposit the duty demanded within eight weeks. The matter is still pending before the Tribunal. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner claims that it has deposited Rs. 1,75,000/- while a demand of Rs. 3,44,392/- still remains.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the matter is to come up before the aforesaid Tribunal for further orders. It is pointed out that in respect of an earlier controversy of the same nature, the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Cour...
Veerendra Singh Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ101
I.P. Vasishth, J.1. The petitioner who is under detention in connection with the trial of a murder case registered against him as Crime No. 50 of 1994, Police Station Khandasa, District Faizabad, seeks intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release by way of a writ of habeas corpus on the averments that his detention was unauthorised and illegal. It was pleaded that on taking the cognizance of the matter on the basis of a charge-sheet filed on 27-6-1994 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad cancelled the warrant under Section 167, Cr.P.C. and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody on the basis of a warrant prepared under Section 309, Cr.P.C. even though no specific order was passed on the order-sheet. Thereafter the case was fixed for 9-7-94 and again for 11-7-1994 but the petitioner was not produced in court on 9-7-1994, that he was produced on 11-7-1994 but no specific order regarding detention was passed on the order-sheet and that even ...
Lal Singh Vs. Meena Kumari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC619
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27.9.94 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agra in Miscellaneous Case No. 91 of 1994 Smt. Meena Kumari v. Lal Singh and Criminal Case No. 282 of 1992 Smt. Meena Kumari v. Lal Singh dated 31.3.94 in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It appears that Smt. Meena Kumari filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Case No. 265 of 1992. The revisionist after moving an application for adjournment did not appear to contest the application whereupon vide order dated 31.3.94 the Judge Family Court granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to Smt. Meena Kumari and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to their son w.e.f. 30.7.92, the date on which the application was filed. She put it into execution. Notice was issued to the revisionist fixing 27.9.94. From the order passed it appears that the notice was not received unserved and since the address given was corr...
Aniruda Vs. Family Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC371
N.B. Asthema, J.1. Smt. Gaura Devi, opposite party No. 8 filed an application under Section 123 Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur which was registered as case No. 98 of 1990 claiming herself of be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and stating that he has deserted her after treating her cruely and praying for Rs. 500/- as maintenance allowance. The revisionist contested the application saying that Smt. Gaura Devi is not his legally wedded wife; that the application under Section 125 Cr P.C. has been filed with totally false allegation and in the alternative pleading that he has no sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to her. Judge Family Court decided both the points in favour of Smt. Gaura Devi and granted her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e. 4.4.1990. Aggrieved by it the revisionist has come to this Court.2. Smt. Gaura Devi in support of her case examined P.W. 1 Narsing Pandey who acted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »