Allahabad Court January 1996 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.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. P.O. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ444All; (1996)2UPLBEC773
D.K. Seth, J.1. The respondent No. 2 made an application under Section 6-H(2)of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act' claiming Dearness Allowance on the basis of the Government Order dated April 16, 1985 on the ground that the said Government order was issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises for Centra] Government Undertakings and is also applicable in respect of the petitioner's Undertaking. The petitioner contested the said proceedings by filing written objections denying the entitlement of the workmen to the said benefit. The Labour Court, by order dated March 29,1994, held that the Deamess Allowance may be given to the workmen according to the notification dated April'16, 1985 for the period between April 1, 1985, and February 26, 1987 which is Annexure '6' to the Writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated March 29, 1994 by means of writ petition No. 22019 of 1994. During the pendency of the said writ peti...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT508(All)
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The petitioner - a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business of manufacture of Aluminium and its products, seeks quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 30-6-1995 (Annexure '2' to the writ petition). By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause within thirty days from the date of its receipt as to why a sum of Rs. 45,98,05,073.38p. be not recovered from it under Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly, the Act) and why penalty should not be imposed upon it under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules) for contravening the provisions of the various rules.2. The contention of the petitioner is that by the impugned show cause Notice, respondent No. 1 has called upon the petitioner to furnish wholly irrelevant details and that the notice is based on wholly irrelevant considerations. It is contended that under Section 4 of the Act which is a c...
Basant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT265(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 25th July, 1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby it partly allowed an application moved by the petitioner under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and directed it to deposit only a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards excise duty of Rs. 10, 21,617.90 and penalty of Rs. 5,04,0007-.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Union of India. The Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad passed an order dated 22nd November, 1994, levying the aforesaid amounts on the petitioner, who has filed an appeal to the Tribunal being Appeal No. E/17/95-A. Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act requires the appellant to deposit with the adjusting authority, the duty demanded or the penalty levied before the appeal can be di...
Ajab Singh Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR945]; (1996)IILLJ438All
P.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. Earlier, when this writ petition was moved before me, on September 4, 1995 learned Standing Counsel was granted time to obtain instructions. Learned Standing Counsel was further directed to show-cause as to why salary of the petitioner during the period of his termination of services and reinstatement should not be paid.2. No counter affidavit has been filed till today, i.e. January 9, 1996. In my view, it is settled Jaw that if the termination order is set aside by a court of law, the employee is entitled for the salary and allowances for the intervening period. In the present case, termination order of the petitioner has been set aside by State Public Services Tribunal by its judgment and order dated December 16, 1993. It has been held by the Tribunal that:-'......it is clear from the record that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to explain his position. In these circumstances, it is clear that the order of cessation ...
Muhstaq Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: I(1996)DMC650
N.B. Asthana, J.1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 4.12.1995 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 397 of 1994 Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance allowance to Smt. Nagina Khatoon opposite party No. 2 and her son at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the application. Smt. Nagina Khatoon is admittedly the - legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Zeeshan is admittedly their son.2. The application was filed on the ground of cruelty alleging that she was married to the revisionist in the year 1990 but he started beating her and treating her cruelly asking her to bring refrigerator and other articles in dowry which her father was unable to afford and, therefore, she was forced to leave his house. The revisionist contested the application denying the allegations made in the appplication and stating that the opposite party No. 2 is the only daughter of her parents that she and her parents insisted that ...
Mohd. Bux Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1657]; (1997)IILLJ372All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The Services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Driver (Road Roller) on November, 1, 1978 in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, was terminated by an order dated February 18, 1980. The Petitioner filed claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The said claim petition was allowed, directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3420 of 1982 moved by the petitioner was allowed on October 9, 1991, holding that the petitioner was entitled to back wages subject to his gainful employment elsewhere. Since no payment was made the petitioner made an application under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act before the Payment of Wages Authority. The said case was registered as case PW-18/92. By an order dated May 11, 1992 the said claim was allowed and the employer was directed to pay compensation ten times the wages payable.2. An appeal against the aforesaid Order dated May 11, 1992 bei...
Anil Sharma Vs. R.C. Virmani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3137
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J.1. Applicant Sri Anil Sharma filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14858 of 1992 impleading Joint Director (Training/Apprenticeship), Meerut Division, Industrial Training Institute, Saket, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut and others. In the aforesaid writ petition, reliefs were prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 11-3-1992, filed as Annexure 'VIII' to the writ petition and for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to assign work to the petitioner and pay him due salary and for further direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in accordance with the decision taken at the meeting of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Additional Director (Administration), Lucknow on 4-11 -1991.2. The applicant earlier filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 1992. In the aforesaid writ petition, a relief was sought that since the petitioner has been appointed on the...
Shiv Prasad Prajapat Vs. Hukum Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3204
ORDERS.K. Phaujdar, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the opposite party, although represented by his counsel is not here nor is the counsel present when the matter is called out.2. The present opposite party was granted bail in Bail Application No. 5387 of 1995 by an order of this Court dated 18-5-1995. The notice of that bail application was given to the Government advocate on 8-5-1995. It is stated by the applicant now that Rule 18(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules in Chapter XVIII bars granting of bail before 10 days have elapsed after the giving of such notice and the hearing of such application. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the area in question was a dacoity affected area as notified. The offences were scheduled offences under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 10 of the Act was a bar to the grant of bail before expiry of 180 days.3. So far as the second conten...
Anil Sethi and Others Vs. President, Consumers Protection District For ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All287
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Anil Sethi, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Surya Nagar, Agra in his personal capacity as also in his official capacity as Senior Manager of the said Branch of the Bank are the to petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The opposite parties are the President, Consumers Protection District Forum, Agra, the National Insurance Company Limited, Agra and one Shri Surendra Singh a resident of Agra. The challenge in this writ petition is extended to the order dated 14-12-1995 Annexure-7 to the writ petition whereby the petitioners have been asked by the District Forum's President to show cause by personally presenting himself on 5-1-1996 why order under Section 27 of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act) be passed against the petitioner Anil Sethi for having wilfully flouted the directions contained in the order of the District Forum dated 20-12-1994.2. The facts lie in a very narrow comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›