Allahabad Court September 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.
Ram Adhar and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1775
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. Accused Radhey Shyam, Munni Lal. Sri Ram, Ram Adhar. Jai Ram Nanhku and Firtoo have been convicted on a charge Under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. They have again been convicted on a charge Under Section 323. read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R. 1. Further they have been convicted on a charge Under Section 325/149 IPC and ordered to undergo 3 year's R.I. Further, they have been convicted on a charge Under Section 304/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The aforesaid two appeals arise out of the same order and judgment dated 8-3-91 passed in S.T. No. 146/88, State v. Radhey Shyam and 6 Ors., P.S. Pawai. Distt. Azamgarh of the same district.2. The prosecution case started on the basis of the FIR dated 17-9-87 lodged by Ramjit at P.S. Pawai at 10.30 Hrs. The incident is said to have taken place in the same evening at about 4 P.M. The place ...
Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(63)LC536(Allahabad)
1. The Central Preventive Officers of the Customs Department, Allahabad searched the residential premises of the petitioner on 21.6.1994 and recovered goods of foreign origin and silver currency. Subsequently the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 24.10.1994 requiring him to show cause as to why proceeding under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 be taken. The petitioner alleges that he submitted his explanation on 15th Feb., 1995 but the respondents have not adjudicated the matter and the result of which the petitioner is suffering great irreparable loss.2. After having heard learned Counsel for petitioner we dispose of this petition but directing the Collector (Preventive) Customs, Lucknow to adjudicate the matter if possible within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Petitioner will cooperate in the proceeding and shall not seek adjournment....
In Re: Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas182(All)
A.K. Banerji, J. 1. Vide the order dated June 28, 1993, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' in short) recommended the winding up of the company, Champaran Sugar Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company in liquidation'). Subsequently the order dated June 28, 1993, passed by the BIFR was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) on July 4, 1994. Consequently, accepting the recommendation made by the BIFR, this court, vide its order dated September 5, 1994, ordered that the company in liquidation, namely, Champaran Sugar Company Limited having its registered office at Sutherland House, Kanpur, be wound up and appointed the official liquidator, High Court, as the liquidator. However, before the liquidator could take possession of the assets of the two factories of the company at Chanpatiya, West Champaran and Bara Chakiya, East Champaran (Bihar) an application was filed by one Venka-teshwar V...
Prag Ice and Oil Mills Vs. Labour Court Ii and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ675All
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Sinha, holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tej Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 3, at length and in detail. 2. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner , an employer, urges this Court to quash the order dated April 13, 1978, passed by the Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur, the Respondent No. 1, in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act' initiated by a workman Sri Adinath Misra, the Respondent No. 2, whereby an amount of Rs. 20,344.50 Paise has been computed and determined to be payable to the Respondent No. 2. A true copy of the impugned order dated April 13, 1978 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 3. Relevant facts giving rise to instant petition are these ; -- The Respondent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioner. His services were terminated ...
Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. Vs. Dep ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(All)438
ORDERDR. O. N. TRIPATHI, A. M. :The appellant is a State Public Sector Undertaking whose entire share capital is owned by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is, therefore, governed by the provisions of that Act. It is engaged in the business of financing medium and large scale industries in U. P. In addition to interest income on financing, the appellant has also earned income from lease rent on plant and machinery, lease management fees, interest on delayed lease rent and dividends on shares. Thus, the appellant is also engaged in the business of leasing in addition to the business of financing.2. The first ground taken in this appeal is as under :'1. That the learned CIT(A) did not give any decision or finding on the following grounds of appeal before him, namely :1. That there was no justification for declaring the return filed on 9th July, 1992 as non est.2. That the facts and particulars furnished in and along with the return should...
Purushottam Das Goel and ors. Vs. Prabhakar Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ940All
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri B.R. Tripathi and Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.2. From the pleadings before the court it transpires that Sri Prabhakar Pandey, the respondent No. 1, has initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter called 'the Act' for recovery of his wages from them who are, indisputably, the employers and persons responsible for the payment of his wages. The proceedings are pending before the City Magistrate, Kanpur, the respondent No. 2 who is the prescribed authority under the Act.3. In the said proceedings the respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 17A of the Act praying that the movable and immovable properties of the petitioners specified therein be conditionally attached. The petitioners filed their objection. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 passed one-line order dated November 16, 1977 directing the petitioners to furnish two sureties otherwise their properties mentio...
Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2387
1. Criminal Appeal No. 2355 of 1979 has been filed by Pratap Singh, Jitendra Singh, Chandra Pal Singh and Kishan Pal Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 2422 of 1979 has been filed by Narendra Singh and Radha Kishan against the judgment and order dated 9-8-1979 of IV Addl. Sessions Judge Kanpur in S. T. No. 484 of 1978 by which they were convicted under Section 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC and were sentenced to 1 year's R. I., 7 years' R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively. The sentences having been ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of prosecution, in brief is that Narendra Singh and Jitendrea Singh are brothers being sons of Pratap Singh and Chandra Pal singh and Kishan Pal Singh are brothers. The house of Pratap Singh accused is towards south of the house of Lakhan Singh (deceased) and is adjoining the same. Sometime before the occurrence Pratap Singh had fixed a window in his Northern wall which opened towards the Court yard of Lakhan Singh but the said window was got closed....
Neelam and anr. Vs. Viith Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: I(1998)DMC456
T.P. Garg, J.1. Smt. Neelam, wife of Sri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, and her minor daughter have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia with the prayer to stay the operation of the order dated 7.3.1995, passed by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1994, and also the order dated 1.2.1993, passed by the VIIIth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 1031 of 1993, Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Neelam, under Section 126, Cr.P.C. and also to direct Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, to pay the maintenance allowance to them in pursuance to the order dated 26.10.1991.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :Smt. Neelam, petitioner No. 1 was married with Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, on 9.2.1989 at Bulandshahr. Sometimes in the year 1990 a daughter. Km. Isha @ Guriya, petitioner No. 2, was born to her from out of their wedlock. It is alleg...
Smt. Neelam and anr. Vs. Viith Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC198
T.P. Garg, J.1. Smt. Neelam, wife of Sri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, and her minor daughter have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to stay the operation of the order dated 7.3.1995, passed by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1994, and also the order dated 1.2.1993, passed by the VIIIth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 1031 of 1993 (Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. Smt Neelam) under Section 126, Cr.P.C. and also to direct Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, to pay the maintenance allowance to them in pursuance to the order dated 26.10.1991.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: Smt. Neelam, petitioner No. 1 was married with Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, on 9.2.1989 at Bulandshahr. Sometimes in the year 1990 a daughter, Km. Isha @ Guriya, petitioner No. 2, was born to her from out of their wedlock. It is alleged...
Shashi Bhushan Gupta and anr. Vs. Mool Chandra Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1743
ORDERN.S. Gupta, J.1. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 27-7-1992 passed by Sri Krishna Kumar, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj, district Farrukhabad in criminal revision No. 26/92 (Mool Chand Gupta v. Shashi Bhushan Gupta) whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj, district Farrukhabad directed the City Magistrate, Farukhabad not to stay the proceedings of Criminal case No. 26 of 1992 under Section 145 Cr. P.C. but to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 Cr. P.C.2. It appears that there existed an apprehension of breach of peace over the possession of a house situate in Mohalla Haji Ganj Khurd. Kasba Kannauj, P. S. Kannauj, district Farrukhabad in between Sanjeev Kumar Gupta son of Mool Chand and Ram Lal Gupta and 5 others. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. were initiated on an application being moved by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta son of Mool Chand Gupta. The learned Magi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »