Allahabad Court June 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.
Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT27(All)
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Both the writ petitions raise identical questions. M/s. Gan-geshwar Limited, Deoband through S.K. Dhar, authorised signatory is the petitioner in both these cases in which Union of India, Collector (Appeals) now designated as Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad, Assistant Collector now designated as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Saharan-pur and Superintendent, Central Excise, Range IV, Saharanpur are Opposite parties. Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard which has been opposed by Shri U.N. Sharma.2. Admitted facts are that four individual demands have been made against the petitioner, the highest one being Rs. 36,00,000/- one and Rs. 5,00,000/- and odd in the other case. The petitioners have preferred appeals which are pending. They simultaneously made an application for interim order staying realisation of demands made and penalty imposed. Such an application was made under 35F of the Central Excises and Salt...
Moti Sunar Alias Moti Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2260
I.S. Mathur, J.1. One would have thought that after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295; Malak Singh v. State of P. & H (1981) 1 SCC 420 : (AIR 1981 SC 760) and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378, the Police would not have encroached upon the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by making 'domiciliary visits' to the house of the citizen during night hours and insisting the citizen to go to the police station without any reason.2. Undoubtedly, the police has been vested with the power to make searches, enter into the house of a person to arrest him if any cognizable offence is reported against a person under the provision of the Cr. P.C. in accordance with law, but it cannot make an inroad into the house of a citizen without cognizable offence being reported to it. The English Common Law Maxim says that 'every man's house is his castle' or 'the house of everyone is t...
Mithlesh Rani Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC231
A.P. Singh, J.1. Present writ petition involves a short but interesting question of law to be decided for the first time. The question is whether with the deletion of Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, power of creation of route no more lies with the Regional or State Transport Authority. For the purposes of proper appreciation of the question which needs to be decided in this case the facts of the case which are not in dispute have to be noticed.2. Petitioner is an existing operator of stage carriage on Jamuna Bridge Muzaffar Nagar via Saharanpur Tapari-Sidki-Rampur-Bajheri-Sarwat route (hereafter called the old route). Respondents 4 to 21, hereafter the respondents applied before Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, opposite party No. 2 for grant of stage carriage permit on Muzaffarnagar-Kuteshra-via-Sisauna-Naogaon-Khampur-Rohana-Baheri-Akhlaur-Pauti route, hereafter called the new route. The new route which overlaps on part of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›