Allahabad Court July 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.
Hari Kishan Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT269(All)
ORDER1. Shri P.L. 'Agyan' is present for the petitioners, Shri Shishir Kumar is present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal is present for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. By this petition the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notices dated 31-1-1992 and 23-3-1992 contained in Annexure Nos. 9 and 13 respectively.3. These notices have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under which power has been conferred upon the authority concerned to summon the person concerned to appear before it to adduce evidence and to produce the relevant documents.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if anything is seized which is said to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act, a notice under Section 28 of the Act is required to be sent to the person concerned within six weeks (sic) from the date of the seizure of the articles, but in the instant case more than six months have elapsed fr...
Charan Singh Vs. Jaya Wati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC169
N.B. Asthana, J.1. Smt. Jaya Wati-Opposite Party No. 1 who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No. 353/11 of 1985. This application was allowed on 13.11.1987 by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and Smt. Jaya Wati was granted Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance allowance.2. In the year 1986 the revisionist fild an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Jaya Wati for restitution of conjugal rights. This application was registered as Petition No. 596 of 1986 and was decided by VIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut on 25.2.1989. The petition was allowed and Smt. Jaya Wati was directed to live with revisionist and to perform her marital obligations. Aggrieved by this judgment and order Smt. Jaya Wati filed Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1989 which was dismissed on 9.9.1993 by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut.3. On 4.12.1992 Smt. Jaya Wati filed an application under Section 127(3) Cr.P.C. i...
Shree Bal Kishan Agarwal Glass Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT48(All)
ORDERK.L. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the rejection of the stay application which was rejected on 20-2-1995 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. I have perused the impugned orders and find that the Tribunal has rejected the stay order merely on the ground that there is no prima facie case. The plea of financial hardship under proviso to Section 35F of Central Excises Act has not been considered at all though it was raised before and taken note of by the Tribunal. Therefore the impugned order of rejecting the stay petition is bad in law and cannot be sustained. However, the matter requires to be re-heard and decided by the Tribunal itself by considering the plea of financial hardship also. Therefore, there is nothing else to be adjudicated upon by this court in this writ petition.2. This writ petition is therefore, finally disposed of at the admission stage and the impugned o...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Purushottam Lal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All170
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition alleging that he had been the tenant in the premises in dispute for a long time and the landlord respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No. 3 the Police Inspector wanted to evict the petitioner forcibly from the said premises and in that apprehension the petitioner filed the case before the Munsif, Meerut praying that he should not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute without due process of law and in the meanwhile temporary injunction may be granted restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 3 from evicting the petitioner forcibly. But the petitioner had been evicted forcibly by the said respondents.2. In the aforesaid writ petition this Court vide its order dated 30-5-95 directed the District Magistrate, Meerut respondentNo. 5, to take appropriate action for restoring the possession of the petitioner within a week of producing the certified copy of the said order before him by the petitioner. The aforesaid order was pa...
The Committee of Management, Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All65; (1995)2UPLBEC1270
ORDER1. These two writ petitions are connected concerning the same educational institution challenging the orders of the D.I.O.S. and Dy. Director of Education in managerial dispute between the parties. The parties have exchanged affidavits. The learned standing counsel has not filed any counter affidavit and does not propose to file any counter affidavit. He stated that the writ petitions be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the contesting private parties. Thus I consider it appropriate that instead of passing formal orders for admission the petitions may be finally disposed of with the consent of the parties.2. Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 has been filed by Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi as President of the Committee of Management of Janta Ucbchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahuwa, district Bijnor challenging the order dated 12-10-1994 passed by the Dy. Director of Education by which he directed for appointment of authorised controller empowering him with the powers of committ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagat NaraIn Chandu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(All)484; [1996]217ITR491(All)
1. Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Revenue-applicant, and Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the following questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal :'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case when the assessee was running business of letting out on hire kolhus, karoos, the business could be equated with that of an industrial undertaking ? (2) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the assessee was entitled for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act ?' 3. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court....
Prakash Timbers Pvt. Ltd. and Other Vs. Smt. Sushma Shingla and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All262; [1997]89CompCas770(All)
ORDERSudhir Narain, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised in this appeal by the respondents first set that the Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, deciding the first appeal under S. 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956, against the order dated 15-9-1995, passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, was not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').2. The brief facts are that Prakash Timbers Private Limited, appellant No. 1 was incorporaied as a company in the year 1961. It decided to bring into existence another subsidiary company and, consequently, Hridaya Narain Yogendra Prakash Properties Private Limited was incorporated as wholly owned subsidiary of Prakash Timbers Private Limited. In August 1991, Smt. Sushma Shingla and Smt. Sandhya Sharan, respondents 1 and 2 requested that a meeting of the Board of Directors be called to discuss the mismanagement in the company but...
Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ369
ORDERS.C. Jain, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the applicant. Pawan Kumar alias Pappoo. was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 279, 304 and 429 IPC for having driven truck bearing registration No. RMB 1679 in a rash and negligent manner at about 4.00 A.M. On 12-3-1987 near village Gosna at Muthura Raya Road hitting a bullock cart, as a result of which Satyvir and a buffalo of that cart died at that spot and another person travelling in that cart, i.e. Pooran Singh also sustained injuries.2. The trial court, i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mathura found the applicant. Pawan Kumar alias Pappoo guilty for the said offence and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC. six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one...
Ravi Electricals Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT209(All)
ORDER1. Heard Shri V.B. Upadhya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents - the Union of India and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Varanasi.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ order or direction in the nature of cerliorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-10-1979 passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Varanasi (respondent No. 2). The impugned order is contained in Annexure 11 to this petition.3. Without entering into the merits of the case, at the very outset we may point out that the Superintendent of Central Excise while exercising its quasi-judicial power under the Central Excise Act has passed the impugned order dated 17-10-1979 contained in Annexure 11 to this petition without assigning any reason as to how the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of exemption. The order passed is in a very cryptic manner and is non-speaking assigning no reason for arriving at the decision. Thus on this score alone the impugn...
ice and Cold Storage Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ641All
A.N. Gupta, J. 1. On July 5, 1982 Sri Deo Raj Arora who is O.P. No. 3 to the petition, moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) for recovery of money due from the employer who has filed this petition. Opposite Party No. 3 has claimed himself to be a workman which was disputed by the petitioner employer. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue whether the Opposite Party No. 3. was a 'workman' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and answered it in affirmative by means of the impugned order dated July 22, 1983 which has been challenged in this petition.2. The Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (1983-II-LLJ-425) has held that if a Labour Court after, considering the entire evidence before it gives a finding that the applicant is a workman, the High Court will not be justified in disturbing that finding and take a different view and in case if the High Court does so, the Supreme Cour...