Allahabad Court August 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.
Kripa Shankar Tripathi Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Ivth Region a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC533
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1-1-1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Eeducation respondent No. 1 (Annexure 5) and the appointment of respondent No. 4.2. The allegations made in the writ petition in short are that upon the retirement of Sri Janki Nath Tripathi, a permanent vacancy of a Sanskrit teacher in L. T. Grade in the Sarvarya Mahavidyalaya, Prayag, Madhwapur, Allahabad occurred. The aforesaid vacancy and other vacancies for appointment of Sanskrit teacher in L T. grade and other grade were advertised on 26-9-1979 for being filled up by direct recruitment. Upon a representation by the petitioner and some other teachers of the institution, the District Inspector of Schools ordered that the appointment in L T. grade in the institution through promotion was less than 40 per cent the vacancy in the post of a trained Sanskrit teacher in L. T. grade be filled up by promotion f...
Ram Autar Alias Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1616
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. Ram Autar alias Om Prakash filed this Habeas Corpus petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith and to set the petitioner at liberty. A writ of certiorari is also prayed for quashing the impugned detention order dt. 30-1 -96 passed by the District Magistrate. Kanpur Nagar.2. The petitioner was confined to the District Jail. Kanpur Nagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, I.P.C. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)(5) of Schedule Cases and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 6-12-95 when the petitioner was in District Jail. Kanpur Nagar. the impugned order dt. 6-12-95 passed by the District Magistrate. Kanpur Nagar (Annexure 1) alongwith the grounds of detention was served to him through the Jail Authorities on 7-12-95. The petitioner submitted his representation on 18-12-95 through the Jail Authorities which was received by the State Government on 20-12-95. The District Magi...
Jagmohan Alias Manohar Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1660
ORDERT.P. Garg, J.1. Judgmohan alias Manohar Lal son of Pokhar Dass has filed the present revision against the judgment and order dated 17-6-1983 passed by IIIrd Additional District Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1982 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1982 whereby the appeal by the applicant was dismissed and order and judgment dated 3-2-1982 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Saharanpur convicting the applicant under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravening the provision of U.P. Paddy and Rice (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,6407- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for three months.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Revision are as under :-On the night between 12/13-6-1974 at about 0.10 a.m. Senio...
Anil Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ276
A.S. Gill, J.1. The petitioner (in detention) before us has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing his detention order dated 20-9-1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut under Section 3(2) National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention was served on the petitioner on 20-9-1995. when he was in Jail in case Crime No. 296/1995, under Sections 368/302/201, I.P.C., Police Station T.P. Nagar Mcerut. The detention order indicated that the District Magistrate, Meerut was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The detention order of the petitioner emanated from his involvement in the commission of murder of a child Tushar aged about 4 years after hatching a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused in respect of which the aforesaid crime case was ...
Yad Ram Vs. Seema Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ485
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. The matter was heard on 1.8.1996 in absence of the respondent as he did not appear on call. An application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act made before the court below showing the present revisionist as the owner of the offending vehicle. At a late stage of the proceedings the present revisionist made a prayer for amendment of his written statement to say that he was not the sole owner and another person Danbeer Singh, was also a co-owner of the vehicle. The application was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that it was a delayed one and was filed solely for the purpose of lingering the matter. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code permits amendment at any stage. If the court below was of the view that the amendment was sought for at a late stage he could have allowed costs. The purpose of amendment is to allow party to bring the whole case before the court. When it is the definite defence of revisionist that he was n...
Taj and Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1699
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5940 of 1996 filed by Taj and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5942 of 1996 filed by Masrror Alam are being disposed of by a common order as the grounds of detention of the two petitioners are substantially the same and same arguments have been advanced on their behalf.2. The District Magistrate, Moradabad passed an order on 15-9-95 under Section 3(2) of National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for detaining the petitioner-Taj with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. An identical order was passed with respect to petitioner-Masroor Alam on 19-8-1995.3. The detention order and also the grounds of detention were served upon petitioner-Taj on the same day i.e. on 15-9-1995 in jail as he was in judicial custody in respect of Case Crime No. 188/ 95 under Sections 307/452, IPC of P. S. Mughalpura in pursuance of an order of remand passed by a Magistrate on 15-7-95. The grounds ...
Committee of Management Shri Kashi Raj Mahavidyalaya, Aurai and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All99; (1996)3UPLBEC1617
ORDERR. Dayal, J. 1. Following question has been referred by a Division Bench of this Court for decision by the full Bench: 'Whether the Deputy Director of Education can be said to be functioning as a Tribunal within the meaning of Rule 5 in Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, while exercising the powers conferred on him under sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.'2. This special appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed questioning the validity of an order passed by theDeputy Director of Education under Section 16-. A(7) of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.L. Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the third responde...
Jagdish Prasad Nigam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR112(All)
1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an income-tax payer, challenges the levy of- tax to the tune of Rs. 3,462 and Rs. 1,483 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively.2. We have heard Sri V. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. K. Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The aforesaid amounts happened to be income-tax levy on certain amounts realised by the petitioner from his customers as purported exciseduty levied on the sale of poppy heads.4. The levy of excise duty on the aforesaid goods was earlier quashed by this court and an appeal was stated to be pending in the Supreme Court.5. It is settled that any such amounts realised by a dealer as a part of. price of goods are trading receipts and taxable as income, in view of the decision in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd, v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) .6. The order of the assessing authority levying income-tax on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›