Allahabad Court December 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.
Ravindra and Co. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT305(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 16-7-1996, copy of which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition. The said order reads as under :-'By the present application the applicants have come up for the stay of the order. Sri G. Shiv Dass, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that through the lower authorities have classified the goods under Chapter Heading 24.04 but have not yet quantified the amount of duty payable by classifying the goods under this Chapter heading. He also submits that there is no penalty levied on the applicant. Sri A.K. Madan the D.R. concedes that the demand has not been quantified so far in accordance with the order.Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel and the learned DR. We find that under Section 35F powers have been given to the Tribunal to stay the payment of duty and fine. In the instant case we find that neither the duty has been quantified no...
Darshan Kumar and Other Vs. the State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All209
ORDER1. Five petitioners, Darshan Kumar, Vijai Kumar, Om Prakash, Vijai Kumar son of Narain Das and Pradeep Kumar have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Gazette Notifications dated 25-1-86 and 23-8-86 (Annexures 1 & 2 respectively), prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limit of Rishikesh.2. When the writ petition was admitted on 7-11-86, an interim order was also passed restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' right to do business of sale of eggs within the limits of Municipal Board, Rishikesh. A detailed counter affidavit along with an application to vacate the stay order was filed as early as on 13-2-87. But the case could not come up for one reason or the other and it has been listed for final hearing now. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.3. Sri H.S. Nigam assisted by Sri S.S. Nigam has been heard at considerable length in support of this petition. Sri Bhartji Agarwal assisted by Sri Suren...
U.P. State Textile Corporation Spinning Mills Vs. State of U.P. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR44]; (1998)IIILLJ91All
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In this writ petition M/s. U. P. State Textile Corporation Spinning Mills, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the Mill) has challenged the award dated March 31, 1984, given by the Labour Court, Agra, in Adjudication Case No.62 of 1980. Respondent No. 3 Sital Prasad was employed as reeler in the Mill on September 30, 1977. He was terminated from service on April 21, 1979. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on December 27, 1979.2. Case of Respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was that on April 5, 1979, strike took place in the Mill and on account of the prevailing tension, workmen could not go to the Mill. On April 8, 1979 the Manager, Labour Welfare Officer and security guard of the Mill approached the petitioner and compelled him to go to the Mill. On his refusal to go he was severely beaten as a result of which he was hospitalised and remained there...
Ram Niwas Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: 1998CriLJ635
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-11-1979 passed by Sri B. I. S. Sodhi, the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun in S.T. No. 462 of 1978 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Ram Niwas of the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of 1 year.2. The prosecution story was that the marriage of the younger brother of the informant Ram Pal Singh was to take place on 28-5-1975 and in that connection his sister Smt. Virwati and her son Viresh aged 5-6 years had come to his house, that on 23-5-1975 evening, Viresh got fever, that HO/JO/A 1334/96/RK/CSL there was no Government doctor or Vaidh in the village, that on 24-5-1975, the informant had gone with the consolidation officer on his tour leaving behind Smt. Virwati and other house holders at the house, that in his absence, the accused-appellant Ram Niwas came to see him and offered to treat him and gave him a injection, though he was not a qualif...
Prem Chandra Srivastava and ors. Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC122
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Both these writ petitions were heard together.2. The facts involved herein are that the petitioners are High Court employees and holding substantive posts of Upper Division Assistants in the High Court at Allahabad and all are functioning as Bench Secretary Grade II for the time being.3. Under the office memorandum dated 1-6-1992 it was notified that written examination for recruitment of Bench Secretary Grade II would be held but no written examination was held. From time to time dates of examination were shifted. In view of large number of substantive vacancies in the post of Bench Secretary Grade II in the High Court, an office memorandum was issued by the Joint Registrar on 3-11-1993 whereby the willingness to work as Bench Secretary Grade II was asked for from the ten senior most Upper Division Assistant working in the High Court with the condition that they would not claim any salary attached to the Bench Secretary Grade II. As none of the ten senior most ...
Cheddi Lal Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT48(All)
ORDER1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned demand. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that no order giving rise to the impugned demand was ever served upon them by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners are not aware as to which type of demand has been raised.3. In Para 1 (d) of the counter affidavit, it is averred that Shri Cheddi Lal (Petitioner No. 1) had cultivated, 1.98 acres in five plots during the first crop year 1975-76, which was registered on the survey book on 5-12-1975, in survey book No. 0031 at Pages 6 and 7 against SI. No. 2/6. It is added that at the time of taking annual return on 26-5-1976, a quantity of 504 G (sic) leaf, 150 kg. stems and 186 kg, dust was duly verified by the Inspector of Central Excise, Karvi, which was acknowledged by the curers on survey. It is further averred that the DDs after its acknowledgement by the cursers on the counterfoils, were delivered to the curers under Ru...
Babita JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Cce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(70)LC258(Allahabad)
O.P Verma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The contention of the petitioner is that she was denied exemption on the basis of the Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1st March, 1986 (Annexure-I to the Writ Petition), which according to her is discriminatory. Shri Bhartji Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on M/s. Machine Well Engineers v. Union of India , urged that a division bench of this Court has held that the aforesaid Notification is discriminatory and on that basis the exemption can not : 1994ECR443(Allahabad) be denied to the petitioner.3. This is a how the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 16th March, 1996 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition). Since the matter has already been decided by this Court, the petitioner may show cause to respondent No. 2 placing reliance on the case of M/s. Machine Well Engineers.4. For the reason, the petition is disposed of finally....
M/S. Brij Mohan Rice Mill and Others Vs. Regional Manager, Uttar Prade ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All291
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. Both these petitions being based on the similar facts and taw arc being disposed of by this common judgment.2. 'M/s. Brij Mohan Rice Mill (hereinafter referred to as the Unit) is a partnership firmregistered under the Partnership Act. Sri Cyan Singh son of Sri Kandhai Lal, Prem Singh son of Sri Brij Mohan, Smt. Indira Devi wife of Sri Brij Mehan and Smt. Pan Kumari daughter of Sri Manohar Singh are partners of the unit.It appears that the Unit was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 14-50 lacs on 2-4-1988 by the U.P. Finan-cial Corporation (for short the Corporation) but later on it was cancelled by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 14-9-1988. Thereafter by order dated 27-2-1991 the Managing Director revived the loan and ultimately on 13-8-1991 agreement was executed between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of agreement the loan amount does not seem to have been paid to the Corporation, therefore, the Corporation issued notice dated 12-8-94 under S. 29 of...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sunehari Lal Garg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR913(All)
1. Despite sufficient service, the assessee has failed to appear and, therefore, we have heard only learned standing counsel for the Revenue.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions relating to the following consecutive assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 for the opinion of this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 43,100 which represented the amount of gift made by the assessee to his minor children could not be included in his net wealth for the assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contention of the Department before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, inoperative only for a period of assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72 in respect of ...
Executive Engineer, Electricity Store Division and anr. Vs. P.O., Labo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ46All; (1997)1UPLBEC322
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been tiled against the award of the Labour Court in adjudication case No. 122 of 1991 dated September 3. 1993 contained in Annexure 27 to the writ petition, by which the claim of the respondent No. 3, here in this petition (hereinafter called as the workman) has been allowed by the Labour Court directing the petitioners to designate the workman as Typist and award him the wage scale of the Typist.2. The factual gamut of the instant case reveals that the petitioners had appointed the workman as Class-IV employee on November 23, 1977 but just after his employment he was deputed to work as Typist in the division, though he was appointed as Store Helper. There was a purpose of deputing the workman on type work as he was M.A. in Hindi and had the typing diploma as revealed by the affidavit dated August 18, 1988 filed by the General Secretary of the Union before the Labour Court, Annexure 16 to the writ petition. The workman continued to do th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »