Allahabad Court August 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.
Mahatma Ram Charan Das Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1632
ORDERO.P. Jain, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for enforcement of an order passed by the S.D.M. in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant Ram Charan Das filed an application under Sections 145/146, Cr.P.C. in respect of a house situate in Pargana Gangoh, District Saharanpur. The property was attached by the order of S.D.M., Nakur. It was alleged by Ram Charan Das that the original owner of the property was one Sukhdeo Sao who gifted the property to him about 30 years back but the non applicants are threatening to forcibly dispossess him. The property was attached on 24-11-1982. 3. It may be mentioned that originally one Ramesh was the non-applicant in the case who was the nephew of opposite party No. 6 Narain Singh. Balveer Singh son of Narain Singh who is opposite party No. 4 in the present petition filed an application before the S.D.M. for being irnpleaded as a party to the proceedings. That application was a...
Nand Kishore Mangharani Vs. Director of Income-tax (investigation) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(All)60; [1994]210ITR1071(All)
1. By this petition, the petitioner who is an income-tax assessee, seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire seizure effected in pursuance of the warrants of authorisation dated September 3, 1993, and September 8, 1993, under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inter alia, on the ground that under the provisions of Section 132(1)(c) of the Act, the income-tax authority may seize only movable property, i.e., any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing representing either wholly or partly income or property (which has not been, or should not be disclosed) for the purposes of the Act, whereas in the instant case immovable property has been seized which is without jurisdiction.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions rendered in Sardar Pardu...
U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. Vs. Arunima Mathur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ269
C.A. Rahim, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, preferred by U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. and one Satpal, driver of bus No. UME 9738.2. There was an accident on 18.8.1992 at Dehradun-Delhi Road near Subhash Nagar tiraha leading to the death of Subhash Mathur, who was on the roadside after getting down from a taxi. The allegation is that the bus of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. was running at a high speed, dashed the deceased and fled away. The driver was apprehended at the check-post at a distance of 3 km. from the place of the accident being chased by the driver of the taxi No. UMT 8052. The contention of the opposite parties was that the accident was caused as the deceased was crossing the road in front of running bus and in spite of the application of emergency brake the driver could not stop the bus. The plea of contributory negligence was not advanced at the initial stage but was adopted later on. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the story of con...
M/S. C. Doctor and Company Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Belwal Spinning M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All19
ORDER1. This civil revision is directed against an order dated 23-5-1994 rejecting the application of the defendant respondent filed under O.1, R. 10 (2), C.P.C. A suit between the plaintiff M/s. Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. is proceeding against M/s. C. Doctor Co. Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,58,048,44 from the defendant with interest etc. Admittedly a counter claim has been filed by the defendant in which the defendant had claimed Rupees 39,419-70 p. from the plaintiff as counter claim. In the replication filed by the plaintiff it was said in para 9 that 'the contents of paragraph 18 of the written statement are wrong and are denied. The Managing Director of the plaintiff Company did not suggest the defendant to issue a credit note to the Progressive Transport Agency as alleged by him. It is for the defendant to implead the progressive Transport Agency as a co-defendant in order to show that such payment, as alleged, has been made ...
Sabhajee Yadav and Another Etc. Vs. Bar Council of U.P., Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All45
ORDERS.S. Sodhi, C.J.1. The controversy here is with regard to the elections to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and it arises in the context of the appointment of a candidate as Judge of the High Court while the process of counting was going on.2. To give the relevant factual background, after the programme for the electionsto the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had beenannounced, nominations invited and finalised, polling for the elections took place fromOctober 3 to October 8, 1993. In the firstinstance, Justice B. D. Agarwal, a retiredJudge of this Court, was appointed ReturningOfficer for this poll. Counting of votes wascommenced by him but before it could becompleted he fell ill and resigned on January1, 1994. By that time some candidates hadalready been eliminated. 3. On January 9, 1994, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh appointed Justice M. P. Mehrotra, another retired Judge of this Court as the Returning Officer for this election. February 1, 1994, was thereafter fixed for restrai...
Sumer Chand (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1042
Palok Basu, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the Judgment and order dated 18-6-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dchradun in S. T. No. 148 of 1988 whereby both the appellants stand convicted under Section 302/34 1PC and appellant Sumer Chand stands sentenced to death while appellant Moti Ram stands sentenced to imprisonment for life thereunder.2. The charge against the appellant Sumer Singh was that on 28-8-1988 at about 1 p.m. in the Military Dairy Farm, police-station-Rajpur, district-Dehradun he committed murder by intentionally causing the death of his wife Smt. Anita and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The charge against the appellant Moti Ram was that in furtherance of the common intention he along with co-accused Sumer Chand committed the murder of Smt. Anita and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/32, IPC.3. The prosecution case in short is that Rishi Pal, PW 1, Cyan Singh, PW 2, Km. Rekha, PW 3 and Km. Kala...
Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: 1994LC441(Allahabad); 1994(74)ELT499(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar for the respondents.2. In view of the circumstances of this case, it is not considered necessary, nor it is insisted upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, to file a counter-affidavit. The writ petition is, therefore, finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 11-7-1994, passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.4. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, has raised a demand of Rs. 2,92,357.40 p. under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad. Under Section 35-F of the Act, the appellant has to deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the p...
Harendra Prasad Vs. Smt. Parshottama and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All30
ORDERMohapatra, J.1. Defendant is appellant against an order allowing review.2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for respondents that appeal is not maintainable. This has no merit in view of Order 43, Rule 1 ((W), C.P.C. added by amendment of Code of Civil Procedure by Act 104 of 1976. Appeal is maintainable. 3. Coming to merits of the appeal, it is found that valuation of the suit is the main dispute. Suit is for partition, originally respondent No. 1 filed the suit. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 was transposed as plaintiff No. 2 to continue the suit along with plaintiff No. 1. Both plaintiffs were called upon to pay court fee on the suit as valued by them. On objection of appellant that valuation of suit is more than ten lakhs. Trial court held that suit is undervalued as the building has not been properly valued. Plaintiffs filed an application for review of the order. One of the grounds for review was that in civil revision the valuation of the suit was accept...
Chief Engineer, Betwa River Board, Nandanpura and Another Vs. L.N. Gar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All44
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), defendant is appellant against an order under Section 20 of the Act.2. Plaintiff is a works contractor. On 21 -4-1979 it entered into an agreement with defendant to construct fourteen A-I1I quarters at Nandapura Colony, Jhansi, Alleging that there are many defects in the construction plaintiff was called upon by letter dated 24-8-1982 to rectify the defects. Last payment was made to the contractor on 23-1-1981. As the contractor was not paid for the work done by him, he filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Trial Court for directing defendant to appoint a suitable arbitrator failing which to appoint an arbitrator by the Court.3. Defendants in their written statement contested the application on the ground that as per clause 25 of the agreement, all claims of plaintiff stood waived since it did not request Chief Engineer for appoint...
State of U.P. Vs. Babu Ram (Deceased by Lrs.) and Others Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All2
1. These four appeals by State of Uttar Pradesh arise out of a common judgment which has made awards in references made to court under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the four appeals were heard together.2. Lands of various owners were acquired in the same village under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. After series of previous litigations, ultimately the references bearing numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 68 of 1983 reached the trial Court for determination of the compensation. TrialCourt having determined compensation in all the five references at one rate, State Government has preferred these four appeals.3. At the commencement of hearing Sri Verma, learned counsel for the respondents in all the four appeals raised a preliminary objection that appeal not having been filed challenging the award in reference case No. 9 of 1983 Chandra Deo v. State of U. P., there is no scope for interfering with the judgment. After verification from the office...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »