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.
Ayodhya and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2654
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of the judgment and order of Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, v. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Deoria dated 16-9-1978 in S.T. No. 155 of 1976 convicting and sentencing the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 2523 of 1978. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 Ayodhya and Murlidhar were convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I., under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I., convicted under Section 426, I.P.C. and sentenced to one month R.I., convicted under Section 449, I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years R.I., under Section 302/149, I.P.C. for life imprisonment and 323, I.P.C. to six months R.I. Appellants No. 2, 4 and 5 Paramhansh, Madho and Chandra Deo have been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I., under Section 426, I.P.C. sentenced to one month R.I., under Section 449, I.P.C. sentenced to ten years R.I., under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and 307/149 I.P.C. for life imprisonment...
Atma Steels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(68)LC795(Allahabad)
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The case of the petitioner is that when refund applications were rejected, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority and then the appeal was accepted and refund was directed. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. An application for stay was made by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected.3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as a result of the stay application having been rejected, the petitioner is entitled to get refund. It is urged that the application for refund made after the order rejecting the stay application by the Tribunal, is still pending.4. Upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad, to decide the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›