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.
Suraiya Begum Vs. Musheer Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3507
ORDERO.P. Pradhan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 3-9-1990 passed by the Additional City Magistrate II, Lucknow in Case No. 33 of 1990 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow.2. Briefly speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist had moved an application dated 10-4-1989 in the court of Additional City Magistrate, II whereupon the report of the police station was called for. The Station House Officer, P.S. Wazirganj submitted his report dated 20-4-1989 saying that late Mohammad Hashim who was the husband of the revisionist, had taken shop No. 55, Jhaulal Pul, Gwynne Road, Lucknow on rent in 1955 and was carrying on tailoring work in the shop, that he died about twelve years ago and after his death, the revisionist was getting the tailoring work done through the opposite party No. 1. He further reported that the work of Musheer Ahmad not having been found satisfactory by the revisionist, he (Musheer Ahmad) was re...
Ali Ahmad and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3474
I.S. Mathur, J.1. By the judgment and order dated 21-12-1979, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 8th Bareilly, appellants Ali Ahmad, Mohd. Sher, Saddiq, Meer Jadhey, Mohd. Yaseen, Chimman and Achchan have been convicted for offences under Section 302/149,I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellants Ali Ahmad, Mohd. Sher, Saddiq, Meer Jadhey, Mohd. Yaseen and Chimman have been further convicted on three separate charges under Section 307/149, I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment on each count. Appellant Achchan has been convicted on two separate charges under Sections 307/149, I.P.C. and a simpliciter charge under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment on each count. Appellants Ali Ahmad, Mohd. Sher, Saddiq and Achchan have also been convicted for offences under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment while Meer Jadhey, Mohd. Yaseen and Chimman have been convicted on additional ch...
Madan Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2353
ORDERI.S. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17-12-1991 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and the order dated 15-1-1994, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur to the extent the directions are given in these orders for delivering possession to the opposite party No. 2. 2. It appears that on 12-5-1991, the police of Police Station Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur submitted a report to the City Magistrate that the petitioner Madan Pal Singh was a tenant of one room in the ground-floor and one room in the first flor of the disputed house and the remaining portion of the house is locked and was in possession of the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanchan Lata Saxena. It was further reported that the first party, namely Madan Pal Singh was threatening to take possession over the entire house and this may lead to breach of peace. On this report, the learned City Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 14...
Deokinandan and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ61
ORDERI.S. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3-6-1992, passed by the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buland-Shahr summoning the petitioners under Sections 307/323/435/504/506, I.P.C. and the order dated 12-1-1993 whereby the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr has dismissed the revision against the said order.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and in my opinion, there is no force in this writ petition. The relevant facts are in a very short compass. The complainant, Ram Kishore Garg, filed a criminal case which was registered as No. 352A/90, State Versus Deoki Nandan under Sections 307/323/435/504/506, I.P.C. A final report was, however, given by the concerned investigating officer. The complainant then moved a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate and submitted that the police has wrongfully given the final report. The complainant also filed an affidavit along with his protest petitio...
Ganga Prasad Yadava Vs. Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All266; [1995(71)FLR182]; (1995)1UPLBEC390
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner seeks that a writ of mandamus be issued to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini to admit him in B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering Course in the 1993-94 session and also that the admission granted to respondents 4, 5 and 6 be cancelled.2. Allahabad Agricultural Institute (here-inafter referred to as the Institute) was founded in 1911 by Churches under the leadership of Dr. Sam Bigginbottom. It is a professional college which offers several courses of study in Agricultural Sciences and is an Institution established and administered by the Christian Religious Minority. It is recognised as a Christian Minority Institute by the Government of U. P. It is not in dispute that the Institute is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and salary to its teachers and other employees is paid in accordance with Chapter XI-A of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to. as the Act) under Section 60-E of the Act, the State Government is liab...
Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ665
S.S. Sodhi, C.J.1. Binding judicial precedent the concept and ambit of it, as also the parameters of the per incuriam rule, are what arise for consideration in the context of the not infrequent instances of law laid down by a larger Bench being treated as, or said to be, incorrect by a single Judge, or a single Judge or a Division Bench doubting the correctness of what has been laid down not only by a co-ordinate but also a larger Bench or brushing it aside by applying to it the label of 'per incuriam'.2. Illustrative of the imperative necessity of examining and clarifying the issues raised are two judgments of M. Katju, J., one relating to cancellation of an arms licence and the other to the grant of it.3. M. Katju, J. in Civil Misc. Petition 8374 of 1992 (Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.) decided on March 4, 1992 when faced with the judgment of a five judge Full Bench in Kailash Nath v. State, (1985 AWC 493) and the earlier Full Bench decision in C.P. Sahu v. State of U.P. : AIR198...
Kallu and anr. Vs. Shahid Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3489
ORDERO.P. Pradhan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-8-1983, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1983 whereby he allowed the revision of opposite party No. 1 by setting aside the order dated 23-4-1983. passed by VII Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Bahraich.2. This revision arises out of the following circumstances :At about 7.00-8.00 p.m. on 27-9-1981. opposite party No. 1 was taking food in the inner courtyard of his house and a lantern was also burning there. The revisionists along with two other persons entered into the side courtyard and revisionist Beni Madho exhorted the revisionist Kallu to kill opposite party No. 1. Thereupon Kallu fired a shot at opposite party No. 1, Shahid Ali from his country made pistol with the intention to kill him but the shot got misfired. Shahid Ali raised an alarm which attracted to the scene of occurrence several persons. The culprits fled from the house but while running out of the house, the co...
Datoon and Datoon India Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT208(All)
ORDERB.K. Singh, J.1. The petitioner, by the instant writ petition, has impugned the order dated 6-12-1994, passed by the Tribunal on petitioner's application for stay and waiver.2. The relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may be stated. The petitioner is in the business of manufacture of 'Pan Masala' and tobacco, A licence for dealing in the said trade has been granted to the petitioner. The facts disclosed in the file reveal that on 27-6-1990 a team of Central Preventive Officers, Central Excise, Kanpur made a surprise visit in the premises where the petitioner does manufacturing of the above mentioned commodity. They found certain discrepancies and also evasions. Consequently a notice was issued to the petitioner and the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur by order dated 25-11-1993 confirmed demand of the duty amounting to Rs. 3,68,718/- on 'Pan Masala' and Rs. 56,535/- on branded Zarda. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner preferred an ap...
Sushila Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(All)22; [1995]214ITR137(All); [1995]80TAXMAN117(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the orders dated May 14, 1990, and October 29, 1990 (annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition), passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC', New Delhi (respondent No. 2), for the assessment year 1982-83 and further directing the said respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order was passed by respondent No. 2 on the petitioner's application under Section 254(2) of the Act on June 23, 1994, the petitioner further seeks quashing of the same, which is annexed as annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.2. The brief facts are, the petitioner started selling her agricultural land in plots from the assessment year 1976-77 and continued to sell up to the assessment year 1982-83. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the sale of plots as an adventure in the nature of trade/business as against capital gain claimed b...
Arvind Mishra Vs. Zila Nibandhak Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ789All; (1995)1UPLBEC404
S.S. Sodhi, C.J. 1. A classic instance of an interim order passed by this Court being a windfall is provided here.2. The petitioner Arvind Mishra invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the plea that he had been given appointment for a period of 90 days, but his services had been wrongfully terminated before the expiry of this period.3. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing on July 11, 1991, being B.M. Lal, J. an interim order was passed by virtue of which the respondents were restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioner as clerk. A direction was also issued that he be paid his remuneration regularly. If, is by virtue of this order that the petitioner has continued in service ever since, that is, for over three and half years.4. It is indeed extraordinary that where the claim was only to the extent that he be permitted to continue in service for 90 days, the petitioner has been directed to be kept in service for such a long period of time.In other wor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »