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.
Ramaveer Upadhaya and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All131
ORDER1. In the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the said petitions were heard together.2. In the Writ Petitions Nos. 16231 of 1995, 16419 of 1995 and 16441 of 1995, petitioners pray for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondents dated 9-6-1995, 10-6-1995 and 11-6-1995 respectively, whereby the security guards earlier provided to themare sought to be withdrawn by the respondents and in Writ Petn. No. 16439 of 1995 petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to provide the facility of security guard provided to him earlier.3. It is not necessary to give the facts of each case in detail, inasmuch as in all these cases basic facts are that petitioners were provided security guards in the form of gunners and shadows by the respondents, which are now being withdrawn, therefore, the petitioners were obliged to approach this...
Fine Stamps Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT9(All)
ORDERK.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the final order No. A/628/94-NRB, dated 5-7-1994 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the waiver application filed by the petitioner alongwith appeal was rejected and the appeal was dismissed due to default in depositing the amount within the prescribed time.2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shisheer Kumar learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the material brought on record. The learned standing counsel informs that no counter affidavit will be filed by the respondents. Both the counsels are agreed that the writ petition may be finally disposed of with the necessary direction.3. The petitioner was assessed Rs. 61,358.21 as Excise duty by Deputy Collector, Central Excise. He filed an appeal which was confirmed by Collector Appeals, Central Excise. Thereafter, he filed Second Appeal bef...
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT512(All)
ORDERK.L. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 22-3-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi passed on the waiver application under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed in Appeal No. 396/94-NRB whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Five Lacs by way of penalty as imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. I have heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri Shishendra Kumar, Standing Counsel for Central Government and also perused the material brought on record. Learned Standing counsel for the Union of India informs that no counter affidavit will be filed in this petition. As agreed by both the learned counsel, this petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›