Allahabad Court July 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.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas22(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the revisionists, who are amongst the defendants in the suit, challenge an order dated June 28, 1985, passed by the Civil Judge-III, Dehradun, whereby he allowed an application moved by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for amendment of their written statement.2. I have heard A. B. Saran, learned counsel for the revisionists. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.3. Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,50,356.40 and Rs. 97,062.60 against the defendants. It included the borrowers Bindra Dairy Farms, A. S. Bindra and Bir Singh Bindra as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. These defendants carried on the business of dairy farming for which they had raised loans from the plaintiff-bank and had got their cattle insured with respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of its dues from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and added the insurance companies a...
Suresh Chandra Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1134
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the violation of the order dated 23-8-1993 duly amended on 27-10-93 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33733 of 1991, which is an under:-Time was granted to the standing counsel on 19th November, 1991, but no counter-affidavit has been filed. He prays for and is granted one month's time to file a counter-affidavit. List thereafter.Meanwhile the respondent No. 2 is directed to release the aid of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) to the institutions (Annexure-2) in compliance with the order dated 20th March, 1989 or to show cause before the next date of hearing.2. In fact, relief had been claimed by the petitioner in favour of the institutions and not in favour of the petitioner, who is a free lance social worker attached to Bhrashtachar Unmulan Sangarsh Samity, Batiya Karyalai, 48, Mira Patti, Allahabad. The order, in fact, should have been passed in favour of the Institutio...
Modi Xerox Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT598(All)
ORDER1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also affidavits have been exchanged, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at admission stage.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 12-3-1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and also the order referred therein dated 23-2-1996 (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit).3. The short facts are, the petitioner-company has its factory at Rampur where it is manufacturing photocopy/photocopier machines which are excisable commodities. They are also repairing these machines may where brought back into the factory for refurbishing, to bring them back to their original factory quality. The details of which is not necessary for us to refer for the purpose of the disposal of the present petition. Earlier the petitioner made an application under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules since nothing was heard from the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, hence the petitioner again submitted an application on 9-1-1992 for...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)447; [1997]227ITR443(All); [1997]93TAXMAN123(All)
B.M. Lal, J.1. A short question is involved in this petition and that is as to whether in the absence of any statutory provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal has any power, authority or jurisdiction to review and recall its order passed under Section 256(1) of the Act2. It appears that by the impugned order dated December 22, 1993 (annexure '5'), the Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated September 8, 1993, which was passed under Section 256(1) of the Act rejecting a reference application of respondent No. 2.3. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under the Act there is no provision under which the Tribunal can review or recall its order passed under Section 256(1) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order dated December 22, 1993, reviewing and recalling the earlier order dated September 8, 1993, is illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand.4. Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned c...
D.C.M. Limited Vs. Prescribed Authority (Payment of Wages Act) and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2697]; (1997)ILLJ1082All; (1997)1UPLBEC230
A.B. Srivastava, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to act as the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and for quashing the order dated September 12, 1984 of the Prescribed Authority accepting the claims of the respondent Nos. 4 to 29 to be within limitation and order dated March 31, 1987 awarding a total sum of Rs 11,51,150/- to the respondent Nos. 4 to 29. The break up being Rs 1,04,650/- towards payment of deductions made from the wages of these respondents and Rupees 10,46,500/- being compensation at ten times of the said amount. The amount awarded to each of the respondent being Rs. 40,250/-. 2. The respondent Nos. 4 to 29 made application under Section 15 of the Payment of WagesAct, 1936 to the respondent No. 1, the prescribedauthority alleging that they are employed in theDaurala Sugar Works, Meerut, a unit of M/sDelhi Cloth and General Mill Ltd as Palledars.Their terms of emp...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ1173
Om Prakash and R.K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the appellant.2. This is an appeal filed by the insurer against the impugned award dated 2.3.1996 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Kashi.3. One Sunder Lal died when the taxi by which he was travelling, met an accident on 10.11.1993 in Uttar Kashi District. He was 35 years old, was serving in Animal Husbandry Department at that time and was getting salary of Rs. 2,300/- per month. The claimants, namely, widow, children and mother filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal holding that Sunder Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of the taxi by the driver, who himself owned the taxi and died of the same accident and considering his age and emoluments, determined compensation at Rs. 1,65,000/- and held that the insurer was liable to indemnify that liability which was incurred by the owner of the vehicle.4. The only contention raised before us is that the claim petition was bad for nonjoinder of the par...
Adhiwakta Parishad Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Union of India Throug ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All194; (1996)4UPLBEC2285
ORDERRavi S. Ddhavan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Adhiwakta Parishad and another. The relief sought in the petition is that a mandamus be issued to the Union of India to review the strength of judges at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and refix the strength of judges of this High Court commensurate with the need to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice. The theme of the writ petition is that if there were more judges, regard being had tothe docket explosion at the Allahabad High Court, then, the increased strength of judges will see finality of cases and reduce the arrears. The contention of the petitioners in the case is that one simple solution to all this porblem of arrears would be to appoint more judges. The petitioner dwells on other ills which afflict the Court, but primarily pleads that if more judges, were appointed, then the additional strength will effectively be in a position to mo...
William De Noronha and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR27(All)
1. When this writ petition was taken up an application for adjournment of the writ petition was made by Sri Shambhu Chopra on the plea that one of counsel for the petitioners, namely, Sri P. N. Bathan, has gone to the United States of America. However, as the petitioners have engaged and are represented by two counsel even if one of them is not available having gone abroad, that cannot be a valid ground for adjournment of the case as the other counsel for the petitioners is here and can well argue the petition. That being so, the application for adjournment is turned down.2. Sri Prabhakar Mehrotra appears for the petitioners and Sri Bharati Agarwal appears for the Revenue and they are heard.3. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the reference made by respondent No. 1 for the valuation of properties Nos. 17/9 and 17/9-A, the Mall, Kanpur, and also pray that the respondents be restrained from making any valuation on the basis of the reference made by respondent No. 1, vide...
William De Noronha and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(All)222
BY THE COURT :When this writ petition was taken up an application for adjournment of the writ petition was made by Sri Shambhu Chopra on the plea that one of counsel for the petitioners, namely, Sri P. N. Bathan, has gone to the United States of America. However, as the petitioners have engaged and are represented by two counsel even if one of them is not available having gone abroad, that cannot be a valid ground for adjournment of the case as the other counsel for the petitioners is here and can well argue the petition. That being so, the application for adjournment is turned down.2. Sri Prabhakar Mehrotra appears for the petitioners and Sri Bharatji Agarwal appears for the Revenue and they are heard.3. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the reference made by respondent No. 1 for the valuation of properties Nos. 17/9 and 17/9-A, the Mall, Kanpur, and also pray that the respondents be restrained from making any valuation on the basis of the reference made by respondent...
Mahesh Chandra Vs. the Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All248; (1996)3UPLBEC1586
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Mahesh Chandra Challenges a recovery certificate issued against him for the recovery of Rs. 51,000/-. A copy of the recover)' certificate has been annexed lo the writ pelition as Annexure '4' which mentions that the money may be recovered under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act.2. The petitioner participated in an auction by Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri for settling a right to remove and dispose of dead animals within the limits of block kurawali in district panchayal Mainpuri. The petitioner's bid at Rs. 1,51,000/-was highest and was accepted. He deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on the date of auction i.e. 22-1-1995, Rs. 20,000/- on 7-3-1995, Rs. 35,000/- on 21-3-1995 and Rs. 25,000/- on 22-7-1995, The period of licence was to be for one year from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996. The petitioner's case is that in spite of the petitioner's bid having been accepted and he having paid a sum of Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »