Allahabad Court September 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.
Dr. Manju Saxena Vs. Dr. Kuldeep Saxena and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC323
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Transferring Case No. 89 of 1988, Dr. Kuldeep Saxena v. Dr. Manju Saxena, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, to the family Court at Lucknow. The suit has been instituted by Dr. Kuldeep Saxena against Dr. Manju Saxena for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties is not dispute. They have two sons and an application under Section 26 of the said Act for the custody of the children is also pending before the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar.2. The sole ground for transfer as made out in the application under Section 24, CPC is as under :Sri S.C. Tewari, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar (who was arrayed as opposite party in the present application) was showing undue favour to Dr. Kuldeep Saxena. He allegedly manipulated certain entries in the order sheet regarding the statement of the two sons of the parties, namely, Ka...
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Devi Shankar Kumar Shukl ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ930All
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. A short legal question involved in this Special Appeal is as to whether in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute, an outsider could be appointed as Enquiry Officer or not. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order dated September 29, 1995 held that in view of the Standing Order 16(2)(Kha), an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer. Hence, the proceedings were vitialcd. The appellant-establishment, Indian Telephone Industries. Rac-Bareli. has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.3. It appears that the respondent, as an employee of the establishment, was charged with some misconduct. An Advocate was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charges against the petitioner-respondent. The petitioner- respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report, was awarded punishment. He challenged the punishment and one of the gro...
ishwar Swaroop Sharma Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC526
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned termination order dated 4th September, 1982. The factual gamut revealed by the record of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 3rd October, 1978 as Stenographer on temporary post vide appointment letter issued by the District Judge, Etah which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. The terms and conditions of the appointment letter provides that the services of the petitioner are purely temporary and liable to be terminated without notice at any time. The petitioner further claims that the learned District Judge had held a test in November, 1978 in which three persons including the petitioner appeared and he was found suitable in the said test and thus selected. The said alleged test was held on 6th September, 1978 as the Government of Uttar Pradesh had created 51 temporary post of Stenographers to facilitate Chief Judicial Magistrate of 50 district of Uttar ...
Gulshan Kumar Arora Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC751
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.By the impugned order dated 25-7.1996 the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi while disposing of the stay and waiver applications of the petitioner directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000 within six weeks before considering the latter's appeal. The order shows that the waiver application of the petitioner was partially accepted by the Appellate Tribunal.2. The Tribunal clearly stated in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the direction to deposit Rs. 20,000 is given after considering the financial position of the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before us that the impugned order was passed stating wrong facts. For example, the counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the Tribunal wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that 'The adjudicating officer in the impugned order mentioned that the applicant did not ask for cross-examination.' The submission of the counsel is...
State of U.P. Vs. M/S. Ram Nath International Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All240
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by a decree passed in terms of the award which has been made a rule of the Court, the plaintiff has now come up in appeal seeking reversal of the decree by setting aside the award in dispute.2. We have heard Learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant and Sri S. P. Gupta,learned Senior Advocate representing the Con-tractor-respondent and have carefully perused the record.3. The relevant facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1910, lie in a narrow compass. Under an agreement/ contract entered into between the plainfiff appellant and the contractor-respondent, the tender submitted by the contractor for the lining of parallel upper Ganges canal between the reach K. M. 189.50 to K. M. 197.00 was to be completed in conformity in all respecis with the stipulations in the contract for which Ihe plaintiff had agreed to pay the contractor the amount specified in...
K.M. Scientific Research Centre Vs. Lakshman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR23(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges (i) a Notification No. 6551 F. No. 203/23/957, dated January 2, 1986, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India withdrawing the approval of the petitioner for the purpose of Sections 35(1)(ii) and 10(21) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with retrospective effect from January 17, 1980 ; (ii) notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Faizabad, respondent No. 4, under Sections 148 and 139(2) of the Act; (iii) order dated July 21, 1986, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the petitioner's assessment for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments after making proper enquiries, and (iv) notice issued by the Income-tax Officer 11(3), Kanpur, respondent No. 5, asking for certain information in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. A writ of prohibiti...
Virendra Nath Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC67
S. Dikshit, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage.3. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Tubewell Sub-Division-I, Faizabad in the year 1984 and continued to work there as such till September, 1993. A contract was awarded in favour of Contracter Hansraj Yadav with respect to transportation of P. V. C. pipes from Central Stores Faizabad to Tubewell) No. 56 T. G. Village Muhin uddinpur, Tanda, Faizabad. It has been averred in the writ petition that the contractor accordingly transported the P. V. C. pipes to the agreed destination up to 3-6-1993 and the petitioner is said to have verified the receipt of the requisite quantity of P. V. C, pipes on 10-6-1983. Petitioner has stated that this fact was recorded in the measurement bock by him on 10-6-93. There was no store according to the petitioner at the place to keep the P. V. C. pipes safely therefore, the petitioner wr...
Gajendra Kumar Patel Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal No. Iii ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ822All
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the termination order dated November 14, 1984 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, to issue direction to reinstate the petitioner in the service, to pay him the arrears of salary and allowances and confer consequential benefits of seniority etc. as if the termination order had never been made. It has also been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to make a requisite order allowing the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 1770/- with effect from July 1, 1984.2. The petitioner under the order of the Managing Director of the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Nigam') dated January 4, 1978, was appointed asFinance Manager after the approval of the State Government, He was initially appointed temporarily on one year's probation. The appointment letter provided that his services would be terminated a...
Prem Nath Arora Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ573
ORDERC.A. Rahim, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradoon dated 29-6-82 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1981 preferred by the applicant-revisionist. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradoon dated 20-10-1981 in which the accused applicant was acquitted. The seized properties namely, car, and contraband articles were confiscated.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30-3-1979 the Excise Inspector along with other persons on duty stopped one Ambassador Car No. USK 6970 at about 4 A.M. One Sardar was driving the car, he left the car and ran away. On search four boxes and one gunny bag having Aristocrat Whisky bottles of different sizes were recovered. Charge-sheet was submitted and trial was held. The learned Munsif Magistrate, Dehradoon acquitted the accused on the ground that they were not found in possession of the recovered contraband a...
Sushil Kumar and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(All)121; [1998]234ITR98(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. These three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pertain to the assessment year 1975-76 and have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E'.2. There was a Hindu undivided family known as Sushil Kumar and Sons (HUF). There was also a partnership firm named Sushil Kumar and Sons in which the karta of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family was, along with his wife, a partner representing the Hindu undivided family. During the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 of the Hindu undivided family a claim under Section 171 of the Act was made that on October 1, 1973, there was a partial partition in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 out of the capital of the Hindu undivided family invested in the said firm and a memorandum dated October 2, 1973, was executed. The sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was partitioned as under :'1. Rs. 20,000 to Sandeep Kumar and Prabha Rani.2. Rs. 20,000 to Sush...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »