Allahabad Court October 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.
imran Abbass and Another Vs. Catholic Diocese of Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All351
ORDER1. Imran Abass and Rehnian Abbass, the two minor sons of Smt. Mahboob Zahra were studying in a Christian Minority Institution, namely, Cathedral School, Lucknow, in the last academic session i.e. 1995-96. Imran Abbass was student of class VIC while Rehman Abbass was student of class VID.2. It is said that petitioner no. 1, namely, Imran Abbass due to ailment could not appear in the final examinations which were held in the month of March as a consequence whereof he was declared failed. A request for promoting the petitioner no. 1 in the next class was made as the petitionerno. 1 could not appear in the examination on account of ill-health but the same was turned down, It is alleged that opposite party no. 3 was annoyed with the father of the petitioner, namely, SyedEhsan Abbass, Advocate, who was appearing as a Counsel for opposite party No. 3 in various cases pending in the Court of Law. He had made a demand for the payment of his fee-bills and for this reason his son, Imran Abba...
Ram Tirth Sharma Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Chai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC158
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner's services having been terminated, an appeal was preferred against the order of termination. The said appeal was decided ex parte by order dated 15-10-1986 copy whereof was received by the petitioner on 21-5-1988. By an application dated 17-6-1988, the petitioner prayed for reconsidering the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the said application.2. Mr. S.R. Roy, learned counsel holding the brief of Shri T. Nath submits that there is no provision for review under the U. P. Employee Federal Authority (Business) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter called as the Regulation). He further opposes the writ petition on the ground that even on merits, the said application for review which is contained as Annexure-5 to the writ petition does not make out any case for review. According to him even if the application is treated to be an application for recalling the ex pane order then sign the grounds disclosed do not make out a case for recalling. Therefore, according to...
Pawan Kumar Verma Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ515All
M. Katju, J. 1. The petitioner father died as a teacher of a college in 1980 and the petitioner is claiming his appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. It is settled law that appointment under dying in harness cannot be given long after the death of the father vide Harvansh Sahai Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1990(1) U.P.L.B.E.C.220 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Avi-ral Kumar Mishra, 1995 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C.21(Lucknow Bench), Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another etc. etc J.T. 1996(2) S.C.542. It has been held in these decisions that the purpose of Dying in Harness Rules is to provide immediate financial aid to the family which is in economic distress due to the death of the bread earner. The petitioner is claiming appointment long after the death of his father. There is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. ...
Om Prakash Bhatt and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All259
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J. 1. The Court is of the opinion that these proceedings must now draw to a close. The issue is not whether the petitions have to be allowed or dismissed as in matters of environment and ecology there is no such thing as winning or losing a case. This Court has repealed mure than often and the Supreme Court has said so repeatedly lhat protecting the environment and ecology is a constitutional obligation and a fundamental duty of the citizen, the State not excluded. 2. This petition by Om Prakash Bhatt and others was basically brought to Court as the residents of the hills, particularly of Garhwal, and more particularly of the district of Chamoli, fell threatened by the invasion by State organisations and the erosion of the sanctity and the peace and tranquillity of the bugiyal. Bugiyal, in Garhwal basically means meadows and pasture land which exists above a certain altitude in the mountains no different than the alpine meadows of Switzerland and Austria. Closer to...
Chandra Deo Vs. Juganti Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC6
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed Under Section 397 Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1996 passed by Mr. N.P. Singh, Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Criminal Case No. 437 of 1990.2. Smt. Juganti Devi filed an application Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance for herself as well as her son Ashok.3. She has alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of Chandra Deo, revisionist, according to the customary law available and acceptable in this community of Yadavas. Out of the union of Smt. Juganti Devi with Chandra Dao, a son, Ashok, was born. He is about 10 years old and the revisionist has entered into another marriage, allegedly, with another lady and he has turned the applicant out of his house. The applicant has no source of income.4. The revisionist Chandra Deo, in his written statement, has alleged that neither Smt. Juganti Devi was his wife nor Ashok is his son. Therefore, question of granting any maintenance allowance either t...
Maiyadeen Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All343
ORDER1. By means or this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of the nature of certiorari, quashing the Government Order dated 27th February, 1996, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition as well as quashing of the notice dated 5-10-1996,contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, passed by opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of the Government Order dated 27-2-1996.2. The dispute pertains to grant of Theka/ licence for excavation, collection and disposal of minor minerals. To regulalc the grant of such licences the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 were framed. Vires of Rules 9-A and 53-A of aforesaid Rules were challenged in W.P. No. 3592 (M/B) of 1995 and similar other writ petitions. Rule9-A and Rule 53-A are reproduced as under;9-A 'Preferential right of certain persons in respect of sand and morrum -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 in respect of mining lease of sand or morrum or bothexclusively found in the river bed...
Smt. Mohinder Kaur Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(All)535; [1997]228ITR545(All); [1997]93TAXMAN685(All)
B.M. Lal, J.1. Sri Shashi Kant Gupta for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, standing counsel for the respondents. They are heard.2. This petition was heard yesterday also, i.e., on October 16, 1996, and orders were reserved but during the lunch hour Sri Shashi Kant Gupta appeared in chambers to request that the writ petition be reheard as certain legal grounds could not be urged during the course of arguments. This persuaded this court to place this petition for rehearing today.3. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties, the petition is being disposed of finally with their consent.4. By this petition, the petitioner Smt. Mohinder Kaur, wife of the late Sardar Saran Singh, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proclamation of sale dated September 9, 1996, and an order dated September 17, 1996, passed by respondent No. 2, the Tax Recovery Officer, Kanpur (contained in annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively), whereby auction sale of the house of t...
U.P. State Cement Corpn. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cegat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(70)LC278(Allahabad)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. challenges an order dated 12.12.1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal and an order dated 16.6.1996 by which it dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 35G requiring it to refer an alleged question of law for the opinion of the Court.2.I have heard Shri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of Union of India.3. As regards the rejection of the application under Section 35G the petitioner's remedy lies under Sub-section (3) of Section 35G by moving an appropriate application before the High Court. No writ petition on that aspect of the matter, therefore, lies.4. As regards the appeal the facts are that the petitioner set up a cement factory and started manufacturing cement somewhere in the year 1980. In the manufactu...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3016
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed at pre-execution stage praying that the order dated 30-5-94 passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short COFEPOSA) for detaining the petitioner be quashed and a writ of mandmus be issued directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner or to take any coercive measure against him in pursuance of the aforesaid order. Though the petition was prepared and was got reported from the office on 23-8-95 but the same was actually filed on 19-2-96. By the order dated 26-2-96, a Division Bench restrained the respondents from arresting the petitioner.2. The material facts which are borne out from the affidavits filed by the parties are that on 21 -1 -98 the Customs Authorities checked three persons in Rupedeha in the district of Bahraich while they were coming on three different vehicles from Nepalganj side and found 6.90 grams, 700...
Satya Pal Vs. Ivth Additional District and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC106
R.R. K. Trivedi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. Short but important question involved in this petition is as to whether the Judge while giving judgment in an election petitioner filed under Rule 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Zile Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) may stay operation of his own order for the period provided for filing appeal before High Court under Rule 47 of the Rules.2-A. Facts, in short, necessary to appreciate the controversy are that respondent No. 2 Jivendra Kumar was declared elected as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat of district Shahjahanpur on 22-5-1995. Challeng ing this election. Election Petition No. 1 of 1995 was filed by Jaidrath Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh. Aforesaid Election Petition has been decided finally by learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by his judgment and order dated 26-9...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »