Allahabad Court January 1995 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.
Akhilesh Kumar Misra, and Others Vs. the High Court of Judicature at A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All148; [1995(71)FLR92]; (1995)1UPLBEC374
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Misra, Sri Rajesh Kumar Saxena and Sri Abhimanu Kumar Misra have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari should issue quashing the orders dated 21-12-1994 issued by the Additional Registrar of this court telling each of the petitioner that their applications for seeking permission to appear in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Examination has been rejected. Further prayer in the writ petition is that each of the petitioner should be permitted to appear in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Examination scheduled to be held on 7th and 8th of January, 1995.2. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate has been heard at sufficient length in support of this writ petition. Since notice of this writ petition was already given to the opposite parties, the Additional Advocate General Sri Rakesh Dwivedi assisted by Sri R. I. Saxena,...
Santosh Kumar Srivastava S/O Ghanshyam Lal Vs. University of Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All270; (1995)1UPLBEC301
ORDER1. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage. Shri Hyder Husain, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, has made available the original record of both the petitioners at the time of hearing of the writ petition.2. Both the petitioners were students of Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad, an institution affiliated to the University of Allahabad. Both were appearing in examination of IIIrd Year Course of B.Tech, Agriculture Engineering held for the Session 1992-93.3. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1, while answering the IIIrd Paper of Electrical Machine on 22-4-1994, was wearing shirt on which he had written two lines containing formulas relevant to the paper Electrical Machine. The report of the Class Invigilator is being reproduced below for better appreciation :--'On his shirt, he had written two lines containing formulas relevant to...
Manju Shukla Vs. Ashok Kumar Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC386
S.C. Mahapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. Respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsif for declaration that appellant is not his wife. In the said suit, appellant claimed that she is duly married wife of the respondent. On establishment of Family Court, suit was transferred.3. Respondent filed affidavit of witnesses of his case that there was no marriage. Appellant on the other hand has filed affidavit of witnesses and has also filed larger number of documents indicating that she is wife of the respondent. Considering these materials learned Family Court Judge has held that there is no marriage between appellant and the respondent and accordingly, decreed the suit. This appeal has been filed against the said decree.4. On perusal of the record, we find that learned Family Court Judge has not followed the procedure laid down under the Family Courts Act for disposal of the suit. Under Section 14, provisions of the Evidence Act are attracte...
Olympic Petroproducts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT519(All)
ORDER1. In view of the undisputed facts, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with the rules of the court.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the seizure dated 23-8-1994 and further direction to the respondents to release the seized goods forthwith and provisionally. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of polyester Monofilament yarn falling under Chapter 5406.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Department visited the premises of the petitioner on 23-8-1994 and seized a truck alongwith Polyester Monofilament which was parked inside the factory premises. The allegation by the respondents is that on demand the driver could not produce the relevant excise papers. The officers also seized the excess stock of finished goods, that is to say. Polyester Monofilament yarn. The petitioner has also stated certain irregularities committed by th...
Olympic Zippers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT546(All)
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri A.K. Sinha appearing for the respondents. In view of exchange of ffidavits and in accordance with the rules of the Court, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the seizures dated 23rd August, 1994 and 14th September, 1994 affected in the premises of the petitioner and further seeks a mandamus for directing the respondents to release the seized goods.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is manufacturing mainly Polyester Zip Fasteners falling under Chapter Heading 96.07 and also narrow woven fabric falling under Chapter Heading 5806.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. His further case is that zip fasteners are completely exempt from Central Excise duty. The petitioners are also registered under the Small Scale Industries and are completely exempt from Central Excise Duty as their clearance of narrow woven fabrics were within the permissib...
Chandra Prakash Trivedi and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ320All
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed jointly by 21 petitioners.2. The petition is pending for admission since 1987. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have already been filed in the writ.3. With the consent of parties under Rules of Court the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.4. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for Respondents.5. According to petitioners they all arc Government Employees of State of U.P. and are working as fourth class employees on different posts from 1977-79 under Labour Commissioner. U.P. The present writ petition had been instituted in 1987 and up to the date of filing the petition the petitioners had performed their duties as daily wage earners for a period 7 to 9 years to the satisfaction of the respondents. The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners had been appointed as daily wage workers by respondents, and on that ...
Shiv Shakti Rubber and Chemicals Works Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(All)259; [1995]213ITR299(All); [1995]80TAXMAN179(All)
K.L. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated September 30, 1994, whereby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, rejected the application of the petitioner for stay of the recovery proceeding's in respect of penalty imposed on him, during the pendency of the second appeal before the Tribunal.2. I have heard Sri G.D. Srivastava, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the material brought on record.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons for rejection of the stay application accorded by the Tribunal in its impugned order dated September 30, 1994, are not at all justified on judicial principles. In support of his contention, he has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. M. K Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815. In this case the Supreme Court has interpreted that even though there is no express provision ...
Allah Bux Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All49
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order D/-21-5-1981 of the Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby allowing the revision of the respondent No. 2 the landlord, he decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears Of rent and damages against the petitioner-tenant.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent with allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the shop in question since the times of its previous owner Kala Devi on Rs.6/- per month rent, from whom the respondent purchased it by sale deed dated 6-6-1972, and by a deed of assignment dated 5-9-1972 she assigned the right of recovery of rent from the petitioner who was, in arrears since 2-7-1955. On 2-3-1973 the respondent sent a notice of demand and termination which was served on the petitioner on 5-3-1973 but he failed to comply and renderedhimself liable to ejectment. Leaving the claim for the period which had become time barred, arrears of rent was claimed w.e.f. 25-8-1970.3. The suit was conte...
State of U.P. Vs. Triloki NaraIn Chadda and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All410
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15-7-1982. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. It has been observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that there are six residential units for each of which the respondent No. 1, the appellant is entitled to 1000 square meters appurtenant land under the U.P. Urban Land (Geling and Regulations) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Under Section 2(q)(ii) of the Act land appurtenant to a building is not included within the definition of vacant land. Hence the appellate Court has rightly held that for each residential building the respondent No. I will be entitled to 1000 square meters of appurtenant land. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.2. Petition dismissed....
Latif Ahmad Khan Vs. the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1241; AIR1995All297
ORDER1. These are two appeals under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, one by the claimants and the other by the owner. Since they arise out of the sameaccident and there is a common judgment, we heard both the appeals together and we dispose of the same in this judgment.2. Shaheed Latif Khan aged about 24 years and Km. Farrash Latif aged about 17 years were travelling in a bus bearing registration No. UTI 2316 belonging to the owner. When the bus was negotiating turning with High speed near Sherkot Octroi Post, it had collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction and on account of this accident, Latif and Farrash succumbed to the fatal injuries on 31-10-1970. In respect of the bus, there was an insurance and Farrash and Latif being passengers insurer paid Rs. 20,000/- to their father. However, not being satisfied with this amount, application was filed by the parents, brothers and sisters for compensation claiming Rs. 6 lacs.3. Owner of the bus claimed that he was no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »