Allahabad Court April 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.
The Kichha Sugar Co. Limited Vs. the State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All17
ORDER1. The petition is being disposed of finality at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.2. U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of Sugarcane required for use in Sugar Factories. The Cane Com-missioner exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed an order on Nov. 9, 1994 assigning 'Khurpiya Farm' to the petitioner-Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kichha Sugar Mill). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner, M/ s. Keshar Enterprises Ltd. Baheri respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as Bahari Sugar Mill) preferred an appeal before the State Government under subsection (4) of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the order dated January 19, 1995 and the order of the Cane Commissioner was modified and 'Khurpiya Farm' was assigned to Baheri Sugar Mill. The present writ petition has been filed b...
Mohd. Saleem, Son of Riyasat Vs. the Joint Director of Consolidation, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All78
ORDER1. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has no objection if 41 area of land is given to the contesting respondent No. 2 Rafique in plot No, 174/1 but it is contended that on the land which has been given by allotment to respondent No. 2, house and trees of the petitioner exists and, therefore, some other portion be allotted on road-side to respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 2 be adjusted on Northern side of the said plot. The order of Joint Director of Consolidation is silent in this respect. As the argument has not been referred to in judgment, it is to be presumed that no such argument was raised before Joint Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the point was raised before the Joint Director of Consolidation but it has not been dealt with by him. If it is 30 then proper remedy for petitioner was to approach Joint Director of Consolidation and point out to him that the said point was raised but h...
Smt. Malti Kaul and Another Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All397; (1995)2UPLBEC974
ORDERR. A. Sharma, J.1. By these writ petitions levy of development fee, Malva fee, water charges and composition/compounding fee by Development Authorities constituted under U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged. Most of the writ petitioners are directed against Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and few writ petitions have been filed against imposition of such charges by the Allahabad Development, Allahabad. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties Writ Petition No. 35662 of 1994, Smt. Malti Kaul v. Allahabad Development Authority has been made the leading case.2. Petitioner's application for amending the writ petition so as to enable him to challenge the Government order dated 12-8-1986 has already been allowed by this Court. Consequently the State of U.P. has now been impleaded as one of the respondents.3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N. Singh, learned counselfor Alla...
K.P.L. Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT12(All)
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.S.N. Tripathi for Union of India.2. The contention of the petitioner is that as a result of the decision given by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (C.E.G.A.T.), the petitioner has become entitled to refund and for that it applied by an application dated 18-3-1993 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) which is said to be still pending with respondent No. 2.3. It is a matter of great regret that the petitioner should come to this Court to seek a mandamus for such purpose.4. Upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid refund claim of the petitioner within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner....
Azad Tobacco Factory (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1995
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(All)476; [1997]225ITR1002(All)
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this case, a very short but interesting question emerges. We both at the Bar and the Bench have not been able to lay our hands on any authority answering the question raised herein.2. Section 80HHC(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), entitles an assessee resident in India, engaged in the business of export of specified goods or merchandise, to a deduction of the profits derived out of such export in computing the total income. Sub-section (2)(a) of the same section provides a condition to such entitlement in respect of goods or merchandise other than those specified in Clause (b)to the extent that the sale proceeds thereof are 'received in, or brought into, India by the assessee . . . within a period of six months from the end of the previous year'. But the said restriction is not absolute, i.e., where the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the assessee was unable to do so within the said period of six months, for reason...
Govind and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ445
S.N. Saxena, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-1979 passed by Shri S. K. Srivastava, learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial Nos. 560 of 1977, 370 of 1977 and 123 of 1978, convicting the appellants under Section 396 IPC and sentencing each Of them to undergo life imprisonment. Appellant No. 2, Feizoo died about 8 years ago and the appeal so far as he was concerned stood abated.2. The incident of dacoity with murders that had given rise to the aforesaid Sessions Trials had taken place on 22-4-1977 at about 6.30 P.M. in village Mahoba under Police Station Aligarh district Bareilly in the house of Kailash Chand Pathak, During the commission of the dacoity, the dacoits had murdered Munna Lal, Smt. Lilawati, Girish Singh and Shanker Lal. All the dacoits were unknown to the complainant and the other eye-witnesses and they were tried on the basis of the evidence of identification against them during the test id...
M/S. Digamber Pershad Kirti Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All1
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay purchase price demanded from it by impugned notice dated 28-4-1979 (Annexure '4' to the writ petition).2. Facts are that the petitioner made a highest bid of Rs. 2,70,500/- on 27-8-1976 for lot No. 18/76-77 West Pinder Range, Compartment, No. 8, Pherkot, Badrinath Forest Division, which was accepted. On the same day the petitioner deposited security to the tune of Rs. 27,100/- equal to 10% (ten per cent) of the auction price with respondent No. 3. An agreement to sell was executed on 27-8-1976 between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 subject to terms and conditions, which are in a brochure filed at the time of hearing of the petition and which has been relied on by both the parties. The said auction was approved by the Conservator of Forest, Garhwal Circle, Pauri, within the stipulated time and that was duly communicated to the petitioner by respondent N...
Mahipal Singh Vs. Vice-chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All14; (1995)3UPLBEC1368
ORDER1. The petitioner is a 1992 batch student of M.B.B.S. Course at Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut. He appeared in the first professional examination of 1992 batch for which the examination was also held in Sept., 199.4. It has been said that at the fag end of the examination of 2nd paper Anatomy. Shri V.K. Pratap, Head of Pathology Department who was invigilating asked the petitioner to leave the examination hall on the allegation that a slip was found from behind the desk of the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner had objected to it and had informed the invigilator that the slip found behind the petitioner's desk is neither in his handwriting not he was aware of its contents. It is also said that he was not shown the said slip. The petitioner stated in the writ petition that he had neither fitted any form with regard to the alleged incident nor any endorsement was made on his copy of examination. The result of the first professional examination was declared in the mo...
Sri Nath Educational Society, Srisa and Others Vs. State of U.P. and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All187; (1995)3UPLBEC1372
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Society which runs Intermediate and Degree Colleges in Sirsa district, Allahabad. These two colleges have been impleaded as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Both the colleges are owners of plots Nos. 416/2, 417/2, 418/2, 419/2, 449/3, 538, 539, 540, 541/1 and 2, 415/2, 536/2, 537/2, 537/1, 420, 421, 542and 543, situate in village Chhatwa Pargana, Khairagarh. Tahsil Meja, District Allahabad. In 1985 the officials of Public Works Department, Allahabad started digging earth in the aforesaid plots for construction of road which was objected to by the petitioners. But when respondents did not stop construction of the road over those plots they filed this writ petition before this Court in which an interim order was passed on 25-3-1985, directing the respondents not to construct any road on the land of the petitioners, unless proceedings for acquisition or requisition of the said land have taken place. This order was subsequently confirmed.2....
Narendra Kumar and Others Vs. Kanpur University, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All7
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioners claim that they were admitted in B.Sc. (Ag. Part I) examination which was conducted by the Kanpur University from Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College, Allahabad. After examination, the result of all other students appeared was declared and it was revealed that the names of the petitioner were not there in the list of successful candidates. On enquiry it was revealed that the petitioners' result was not declared and was withheld. It has been said that the petitioners had appeared in the examination of B.Sc. (Ag. Part I) after submitting their application for examination and deposited the examination fee appeared in the examination along with the other students. There was no justification for withholding the result of the petitioners since there was no complaint of use of any unfair means.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged by the parties. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »