Allahabad Court February 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.
Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT16(All)
ORDER1. The short submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners had completed inspection of record on 18-1-1995 having obtained extension of fifteen days from the respondents and thereafter the petitioners intended to file reply within fifteen days. But the Collector of Customs & Excise, Meerut, respondent No. 2 wrongly stating that no steps were taken by the petitioners to make inspection of the record, passed impugned ex-parte order dated 24-1-1995 (Annexure '3' to the petition).2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners from the affidavit sworn for the petitioners and from other record that the fact is that inspection of record was made by the petitioners and that they intended to file reply within fifteen days from the date of the completion of inspection, but before their reply was filed, respondent No. 2 being under an erroneous impression that the petitioners are not taking any steps in the matter, passed the impugned order. It is further sub...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Ivth Addl. Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC496
K.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated 13.6.1994 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 286 of 1993 and another order dated 8.7.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month was granted to the respondent No. 3.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.R.Singh and the Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Sri V. Singh and perused the material brought on record.3. Admittedly the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were married with each other on 7.5.1990 according to Hindu rites and resided together. The respondent No. 3 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit No. 47 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh. The civil suit was decreed ex-parte on account...
Lokendra (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ67
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. The accused Lokendra Singh has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 799 of 1993, under Section 302/34, IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bijnor. The bail application has been rejected on merits twice. The present bail application is pressed on the technical ground that the remand order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not valid under Section 309(2), Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the reasons for adjourment of the case have not been given and secondly, the proper authorisation order has not been passed.2. Notices were issued and remand orders and order-sheet were summoned, from the Superintendent, Jail. The order-sheet in S.T. No. 365/93 State v. Ashok of the Court of IVth Addl. Sessions Judge right from 22-12-93 to 6-2-95 has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant. On most of the dates, only cryptic reasons for adjournment have been noted and there does not appear to be proper authorisation order. But on some of the dates, in short form, the reasons have bee...
Usman and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3873
V.N. Mehrotra, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1982 has been filed by appellants Usman, Lodhai, Saddan alias Mohammad Sad and Husnain while Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 1982 has been filed by appellants Phallu alias Pharooq Ahmad and Jamiluddin against the judgment and order dated 17-4-1982 by Shri K.L. Sharma, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad convicting the accused persons for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/149; 307/149; 148 and 147, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment ranging from two years' R.I. to life imprisonment.2. Both these appeals have been heard together and shall be disposed of by this judgment.3. During the pendency of these appeals, appellants Lodhai and Jameeluddin died and so the appeals as far as these relate to them, have abated.4. According to the prosecution allegations, the informant Mohd. Hamid was resident of village Lodipur, Police Station Sarai Inayat, district Allahabad. Deceased Mohd. Mahmood was t...
Satyendra Prasad JaIn and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All77
ORDER1. Heard Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants.2. The order dated 29th August, 1988, passed by the V Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut in Original Suit No. 453 of 1987 between Sat-yendra Prasad Jain and others and State of U. P. and others, rejecting the report of the Amin is under challenge in the instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code.3. Second proviso to Section 115 of the Code, is amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh, forbids the revisional court from varying or reversing any order including an order deciding an issue made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to demonstrate existence of any of the aforesaid two con...
Alloy Steel Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector, C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT784(All)
ORDER1. The short contention of the petitioner is that against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 30th August, 1994, the petitioner filed an appeal alongwith the stay application on 24-9-1994 which was heard on 1st November, 1994 but the stay application has not yet been disposed of by the appellate authority.2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner without awaiting the decision on the stay application, the respondents are rushing up to make recovery and in that connection on information vide letter dated 2-2-1995 (Annexure 1 to the petition) has been sent to the petitioner by the respondents.3. Upon hearing the parties the petition is disposed of finally with the observation that the recovery of Rs. 2,86,036/- will not be made from the petitioner until the decision on the stay application by the respondent No. 2....
Rama Shanker Dixit, Son of Sheo Balak Dixit Vs. the Viith Additional D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All293
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 28-11-95 and 10-1-95 by which the amendment application has been allowed in appeal.2. I have Shri P. N. Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar for Respondents.3. Since there are no disputed questions of fact it is not necessary to call for a counter-affidavit. Hence I am disposing of this writpetition finally at this stage.4. The respondent No. 2 is owner of thepremises in dispute and the petitioner is tenant thereof. The landlady filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that her second son Vijay Singh Chauhan wanted to be settled in business and hence the disputed accommodation was needed for this purpose.This release application was dismissed on 24-3-1987 by the Prescribed Authority. The landlord filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal Vijai Singh Chauhan died. Thereafter the landlord filed an amendment application alleging n...
Basant Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ69; I(1995)DMC507
K.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a criminal revision directed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.1994 passed by Judge Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No. 548 of 1991, whereby an application of the opposite party Smt. Baby under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.2. I have heard Sri V.K. Birla learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party No. 2 Sri Virendra Singh.3. On 16.7.1991 the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Baby filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court at Agra. She alleged that she had been married with the revisionist according to Hindu custom on 15.2.1990. But the revisionist Basantal was not satisfied with the dowry received at the time of his marriage and demanded more dowry and on refusal he used to beat her wife Smt. Baby and showed cruel behaviour against her and neglected her even in the matter of providing proper clothes and proper fo...
Shive Chand Son of Brajraj and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3869
S.K. Jain, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 9-7-1987, passed by Sri R.C. Agarwal, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, whereby the appellants Shiv Chand and Prabhu Dayal were convicted and sentenced as under and Brij Raj and Sahebzada were acquitted:Accused Conviction Sentence1. Shiv Chand, son of Brij Raj, Under Section 302,I. P. C. Life Imprisonmentaged 52 years, resident ofAurawa, P. S. Hata, DistrictDeoria.2. Prabhu Dayal, son of Saha- Under Section 302 read with Life Imprisonment.bzada, r/o village Aurawa, Section 34, I.P.C. P. S. Hata. Distt. Deoria.2. The facts of this case as revealed in the testimony of there eye-witnesses, namely, Dagroo, P.W.I, Smt. Barfi, P. W. 3 and Billar, P.W. 4 are that that the accused Brij Raj and Sahebzada were cousins. Sheo Chand accused is the son of Brijraj accused, Whereas Prabhu Dayal accued is the son of Sahebzada accused. During rainy reason the Garhi situated in the p...
Kanhaiya Lal, Advocate, Son of Late Sri. Gopi Nath Resident of 6/23 an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All379
ORDER1. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, at length and in detail.2. By the impugned order the prayer of the applicant to appoint a Commissioner for making local investigation in respect of the property which is the subject-matter of the contract for sale, the specific performance whereof is prayed for in the suit, has been turned down by the order impugned in the instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code.3. Second proviso to Section 115 of the Code, as mended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, mandate that the revisional Court shall not vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where-(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »