Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1016
A.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order D/- 3 1 -.3-1986 passed by IV Add. Sessions Judge. Aligarh, whereby the appellant Smt. Gyano alias Gyanwati and her co-accused Rajvir alias Rajpal were convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 I PC and each of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both of them were further convicted under Section 210 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. This appeal has been filed only on behalf of Smt. Gyanwati from jail. No appeal has been filed on behalf of Rajvir alias Rajpal. On an enquiry from the office it has been reported that since date no appeal has been preferred on behalf of Rajvir alias Rajpal in this case. As such, we proceed to hear the appeal preferred by Smt. Gyano alias Gyanwati on merits.3. The facts of the case are that Rajvir alias Rajpal and Mahipal Singh were real brothers being sons of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(1994)DMC348
Virendra Saran, J.1. Smt. Shakti Khare has filed the present revision against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1993 in Case No. 18 of 1993, passed by Sri Mohd. Farooq, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. It appears that the applicant filed an application against her husband Jagdish Prakash Khare alias Jagdish Prased Khare--respondent No. 3. Her application for maintenance was allowed by Judicial Magistrate 1st class Allahabad on 28.1.1991 and the revision against the order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 4.9.1991. Respondent Jagdish Prakash Khare alias Jagdish Prasad Khare filed Writ Petition No. 627 of 1992 in this Court which was decided on 4.11.1992 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. Certified copy of the order passed by Mr. Justice Markandey Katju is on the record. It was contended before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju that the order of maintenance had been passed ex-parte and respondent Jagdish Praksh Khare was not give adequate opportunity of bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All26
ORDER1. This writ petition is directedagainst the order dated 17th Sept 1992, passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 20th Feb. 1991, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghazipur, whereby the application for restoration was allowed and the order of Board of Revenue dated 5th. July, 1993, accepting the said reference made by the Additional Commissioner.2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents3 and 4 had field a suit against the petitionerunder Sections 59/190 of U.P. Tenancy Acton 30th June, 1972 for declaration of theirrights over the land in dispute in the said suit,the petitioner had filed written statement anddenied the allegations of the plaintiffs. Thesuit was dismissed for default on 7th Sept.1974. The Respondents filed an applicationfor restoration. The restoration applicationwas allowed on 19th December, 1974. Thesuit was again dismissed in default for non-appearance of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1995CriLJ52
ORDERKundan Singh, J. 1. This revision is directed against the Order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 allowing the application of the investigating Officer for giving the applicants in police custody for one day and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 13-1-1994 whereby he had refused to grant police remand.2. The learned counsel for the applicants filed an affidavit in support of this revision staying therein that the applicants surrendered in court on 4-1 -94 and they were taken into custody in connection with case crime no. 174 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. relating to police station Narsena, district Bulandshahr. The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 8-1-1994 praying that the applicants may be given in police custody for getting recovery of certain articles made at their pointing out. That prayer of the Investigat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1994]208ITR758(All)
1. These are five applications filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and pertain to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86. Two common questions have been proposed in these applications which are said to be questions of law arising out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The questions proposed are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the shares of the Agricultural Refinance Corporation and the Unit Trust of India are held by the assessee-bank as its stock-in-trade? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income earned in respect of the shares of the Agricultural Refinance Corporation and the Unit Trust of India is income from business carried on by the assessee and is exempt under Section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1996CriLJ698
ORDERK.C. Bhargava, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th December, 1993, contained in annexure-l to the writ petition, passed by the Sessions Judge, Gonda, opposite party No. 1, and for quashing the entire proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that parellel proceedings cannot go on under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure along with the proceedings pending before the consolidation courts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute since a long time and the matter is pending before the consolidation authorities. In the meantime opposite party No. 3, Bachcha Bux Singh, raised a dispute about possession on the basis of which proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All340
ORDERR. B. Mehrotra, J.1. H. Chowdhary Estates (P) Ltd. which is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is the petitioner in the present matter and has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ of direction to the respondents to refund the entire amount of unused stamp papers along with interest in terms of the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 17th of June, 1991.2. Necessary facts for the decision of the writ petition are being noticed hereinunder:The petitioner-company started working of development of residential colony known as 'Pink City' in villages Namoli, Tuglakpur and Rohillapur in 'Tehsil Sikandarabad, district Bulandshahr in the year 1988 in pursuance of this scheme, the petitioner company started negotiating for purchase of land from different land holders and entered into agreements to sell and purchase in respect of land holdings. The prospective plot holders, filed a complaint against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2918
Palok Basu, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Tihul and his wife Smt. Ramapati against the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. passed by II Addl, Sessions Judge, Basti on 23-8-1979 in Sessions trial No. 117 of 1979.2. The charge against the appellants was that both of them in furtherance of common intention, sometimes in the night between 18/19 November, 1978 inside their house, situated in village - Ratan Purwa, police station - Rudhauli committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Ramraj, their sister-in-law (Bhabhi) punishable under Section 302/34, IPC.3. Appellant Tihul and Ramasrey are brothers Tihul's wife is appellant Smt. Ramapati, while late Ramasrey's wife is Smt. Ramraji, deceased in this case. Both the brothers and their family were living in one and the same house. The cultivation was also joint. Ever since the death of Ramasrey about 11 months ago the deceased Smt. Ramraji was living with her two minor daughter's, Km. Phulwa and Km. Gu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR380]; (1995)IILLJ862All
A.P. Misra, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated July 16, 1985, passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure 11), order of the reviewing authority dated July 5, 1985 (Annexure 10), order of the appellate authority dated September 12, 1984 (Annexure-7) and the order of the disciplinary authority dated June 6, 1985 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as an officer of the Allahabad Bank and to accord him all the benefits and privileges of the continuity of service.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner joined the Allahabad Bank as a clerk on August 6, 1957, at Allahabad. Later, he was posted as Manager at Azamgarh in April 1979. He was then promoted as Middle Management Grade Scale II from December 29, 1982. He remained at Azamgarh from April, 1979, till February 26, 1983 when he was transferred to Gola Gokaran Nath Branch in Lakhimpur Kheri as the Manager. The Petitioner was served with a charge-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1995All209
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner is a public Limited Company, It established a factory in District Hamirpur for manufacturing ferro silicon/ferro alloys. For running its factory it applied for power connection of 5000 KVA and the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) sanctioned the same and an agreement was executed by the petitioner with the Board for that purpose.2. Petitioner filed , Writ Petition No. 16810 of 1990, challenging the electricity bills sent to it by the Board for the month's of April and May, 1990, Writ Petitions Nos. 201 of 1992, .23594 of 1992 and 612 of 1993 were filed by the petitioner, challenging the electricity bills issued to it by the Board for various other, periods. In all the above writ petitions as well as in Writ Petition No. 8028 of 1991 prayer for writ of mandamus commanding the Board to comply with the policy decision of the Government, granting confessions to new industries has also been made. Writ petition No. 35691 of ...
Tag this Judgment!