Allahabad Court May 1995 Judgments
Manvendra Shah, Member of Parliament Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All92; (1995)2UPLBEC1060
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. This case is about a dichotomy between the law in its administration as opposed to a unanimous intention of the legislature of Ultra Pradesh in the applicability of that very law. If either of the factors were absent, there would be no occasion for the High Court to examine the issue before it.2. The issue has been raised in more than one writ petition before this Court. The present one is the leading case. The prayers of a like nature in other cases will be met by this judgment.3. The matter relates to the divisions of Kumaun and Garhwal within Uttar Pradesh. The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh has resolved that this region be known as Uttarakhand.4. Whatever be the course of politics which occasioned the situation, the High Court is not concerned with it. The two Houses of the Legislature in Uttar Pradesh on two occasions passed unanimous resolutions, to the effect that the regions of Kumaun and Garhwal be identified as distinct from the rest of the State and c...
Tag this Judgment!Vishram Singh and Others Vs. District Judge, Etawah and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All90
ORDER1. The question involved in the present writ petition is whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit regarding cancellation of sale deed relating to agricultural land.2. The facts, in brief, are that Rampal Singh was Bhumidhar of the land in question. He died leaving behind him three sons, namely, Jagpal Singh, Bhopal Singh and Santpal Singh. On 2nd September, 1977, after the death of Rampal Singh, a sale deed was executed by Jagpal Singh, Bhopal Singh and Santpal Singh in favour of Daru Singh. The sate deed on behalf of Santpat Singh was executed by his mother as he was minor at thattime. Daru Singh died and thereafter names of the petitioners were substituted in the revenue records.3. On 20th March 1982 Santpal Singh, respondent No. 3, filed Suit No. 132 of 1982 in the Court of Munsif Etawah for cancellation of the sale deed dated 2nd September, 1977 to the extent of 1/3rd share on the allegation that the plaintiff was minor on the date of execution of the sale de...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Tewari Vs. District Magistrate, Ballia and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All115
ORDERD. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner's case, in short, in the present Writ Application, is that the petitioner was granted a contract for the period 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 for the realisation of Tahbazari over Bus-Taxi Stand on Ballia Sikandarpur Road for Rs. 20,500/- on the basis of his participation in the auction held on 24th Feb. 1994 pursuant to advertisement published in the Newspaper. The petitioner had made an application to the District Magistrate/ Officer Incharge, Nagarpalika Parishad, District Ballia, for granting him contract for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% than the earlier year. Ignoring the said application, the District Magistrate granted a contract to one Rameswar Singh Yadav for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% from the earlier year, namely, for Rs. 24,600/-. The petitioner is also ready and agreed to tender the said amount. He has also contended that the contract ought to have been awarded through auction or by inviting tender and not ot...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1995
Reported in: I(1997)DMC180
N.B. Asthana, J.1. The opposite party No. 2 who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist filed an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Kanpur Nagar claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The revisionist contested the application and denied the allegations made therein. The Trial Court found the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 proved and granted her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by it the husband has come to this Court in revision.2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case because in the grounds of revision the judgment of the Trial Court has not been assailed on merits. It has been attacked on two grounds namely that the amount of maintenance granted is excessive and that; it has been granted from the date of application without assigning any reason. According to opposite party No. 2 the rev...
Tag this Judgment!Rubber Complex (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT19(All)
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of duty and penalty, against which he has filed an appeal alongwith application for stay-cum-waiver.2. From paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is apparent that tomorrow (26th May, 1995) is the date fixed for decision of appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has fixed a date for disposal of the appeal without deciding the application for stay-cum-waiver. The said prayer is rejected. There may not be any necessity to pass any order on the stay application. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.3. We hope and trust that the appeal will be decided in accordance with law by the appellate authority expeditiously....
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1995
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC146; 1995(80)ELT778(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 22nd March, 1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, directing the petitioner M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes Limited to deposit Rs. 2,20,00,000/- towards duty and penalty levied on it.2. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal against an order dated 17th November, 1993, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, whereby the latter levied Rs. 18,01,71,325/- as duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-.3. Under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appellant has to deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied. Under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act, the appellate authority has the power to dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions, as it may deem fit to impose if it...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Lipton India Ltd., G.T. Road, Ghaziabad Vs. State of Uttar Prades ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All173; [1995(71)FLR791]
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Lipton India Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its manufacturing Unit of Vanaspati at G.T. Road, Ghaziabad and petitioner No. 2 was the Factory Engineer of the Unit. This Unit in its process of manufacturing Vanaspati discharges certain trade effluents.2. Under the provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974(hereinafter referred to as the Act), no person can discharge trade effluents without the previous consent of the State Board, (constituted under the Act) (hereinafter referred to as the Board), therefore, the petitioner company applied for the consent of the Board for discharging trade effluents until such time that a proper plant for treatment of the trade effluents was made in order to satisfy the provisions of the Act.3. According to the petitioners, aforesaid application was made in the year 1983 and conditional consent was granted by the Board on 16-2-1983. Thereafter, pet...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kumar and Others Vs. State Transport Authority, U.P. and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1995All294
ORDERR. A. Sharma, J.1. Hapur -- Kothor route (hereinafter referred to as the route) was notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) for exclusive operation of the road transport service by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Under the approved? Scheme the Corporation is to operate 30 services daily from each side or more according to the need. The Corporation in pursuance of the above Scheme obtained 10 stage carriage permits in 1987 for operating the service on the route. It appears that the Corporation was not plying its vehicles on the route on account of which there was resentment in the public and some complaints we're also made regarding it. The petitioners also made application for temporary stage carriage permits under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those applications having been rejected by the State Transport Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC674
N.B. Asthana, J.1. The revisionist who is admittedly the wife of Opp. Party No. 3 Ganesh Singh filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month alleging that she was married about 20 years ago. She remained with her husband for about 11 years and performed her marital obligations. No child could however be borne out of this wedlock on account of which her husband started harassing her on small matters. He developed illicit relations with the sister of the wife of his elder brother. Subsequently he married her and kept her in the same house. The revisionist objected to it whereupon he started treating her cruelly and forced her to leave the house after 3 years of his second marriage. She then started living with the parents. Her husband was employed in the Army. He is getting Rs. 900/- per month as pension and carrying on a shop which gives him an income of Rs. 500/- per m...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Kumar Varma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ442
ORDERS.K. Phaujdar, J.1. This is an application for bail. The applicant is in custody in criminal case No. 257 of 1994 under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). The bail application has been pressed on the ground that his remand to jail custody by the trial court was not in accordance with law and, as such the whole detention has vitiated. It is also contended that no narcotic drug or psycho-tropic substance was recovered from him and he was falsely implicated. It was contended that the required provisions of the Act were not followed under the alleged arrest, and seizure and search and the subsequent steps by the authorities, and the provisions being mandatory, the violation thereof would entitle him to acquittal after trial and as such he was entitled to bail at this stage.2. The case against him, as levelled according to the First Information Report, is that on 13-1-95 at about 2 p.m. the intelligence ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »