Allahabad Court March 1997 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.
Babu Ram and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1047
P.K. Jain, J.1. Five persons, appellants Babu Ram and Ragunath and three others, Ajudhi, Smt. Phool Mati and Smt. Champa, were tried by the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area, Kanpur, in S.T. No. A 231 of 1978. Out of the five accused who stood trial, appellants, Babu Ram and Raghunath, were convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment and order-dated 14-11-1979. Other accused, Ajudhi, Smt. Phool Mati and Smt. Champa were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.2. The incident is said to have occurred on 8-10-1977 at about 10.00a.m. in village Bahrampur within the local limits of P. S. Bichor, district Kanpur Non-Metropolitan Area, the first information report of the incident was lodged by Sipahi Lal, brother and son respectively of deceased Ram Swarup and Smt. Lachchana. It is alleged that for about 18 years animosity was existing between complainant's party on one side and the a...
Anirudh Shahi Vs. Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Pwd Banda ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All363
ORDER1. The solitary question mooted out in this writ petition, in which a prayer has been made to quash the recovery proceedings including its certificate dated 1-6-1996, as-contained in Annexure 7, as welt as citation dated 22-6-1996, as contained in Annexure 8, is-that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the amount sought to he recovered cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing insupport of the petitioner, look us to several paragraphs of the writ petition as well as various orders passed in this case from time to time that despite grant of .repeated indulgence to the respondents since 16-7-1996 they have not come up with any counter and accordingly invoking the doctrine of non-traverse this court may accept the submission in this regard as correct.3. Mr. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, initially again prayed for adjournment, but when we drew his attention to the order dated 16-7-1996, 13-8-1996, 16-10-199...
Harendra Singh Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ549All
1. Heard Dr. R.G.Padia tor the appellant and Sri V.R. Agarwal for respondents.2. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment dated December 10, 1996 of CivilMisc. Writ Petition No. 16758 of 1996 rejecting the 'petitioner's claim for regularisation of service and dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal assailing the said judgment. 3. On perusal of the judgment and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the pleadings of the parties, it is clear to us that the petitioner's appointment as a volley-ball coach was for a fixed term and fresh orders of term appointment were being issued from year to year. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 25F of the Industrial DisputesAct is applicable. This question, in our considered view, can be more appropriately considered by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the impugned judgment, we make it clear...
M/S. Kuber Dal and Oil Mills, Fatehpur Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All305; [1997]89CompCas813(All)
ORDEROm Prakash, J. 1. A usual petition is filed by the petitioner a partnership firm styled as M/s Kuber Dal and Oil Mills-constituted by two partners, namely, Ayodhya Prasad and Kanhiya Lal (though wrongly asserted a proprictnry concern in para 2 of the writ petition), engaged in the business of manufacture of pulses for quashing the impugned order dated 7-l-'l'99l (Annexure '1' to the writ petition), issued by the U.P. Financial Corporation (U.P.F.C.) calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues, aggregating to Rs. 6,01,700.88 p. break up of which is as follows :1. Principal outstanding Rs. 4.49,918.602. Interest due up to 20-12- Rs. 1.51,782.88 903. Other expenses Rs. Nil ----------------------- Total : Rs. 6,01,700/- -----------------------The facts as succinctly stated are that a term loan to the tune of Rs, 4,53,000/- was sanctioned by the UPFC to the petitioner on 5-6-1986; that of the sanctioned amount only a sum of Rs. 4,49,918.00 was paid to the petitioner; that ...
Dennis Lall Vs. Smt. Amita Lall
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All12; II(1997)DMC119
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The two appeals have been placed before this Special Bench, on a reference made by Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. The appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the controversy raised is identical.2. Dennis Lal filed a petition under Section 22 of Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his wife Smt. Amita Lall, which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1994, praying that a decree of judicial separation be passed on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi passed a decree for judicial separation on 21-5-96 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 432 of 1996.3. Smt. Anita Rohini Shirin Newton filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act against her husband Ivan Alphonsus Michael Lewis, which was registered as Suit No. 321 of 1993, praying that her marriage with her husband be disso...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Bhushan Press.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)52
BY THE COURT :At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal, Delhi Bench EMC Delhi referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed and that two separate assessments should be framed on the basis of the two returns of income filed by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in taking the view that it was a case of succession of one firm by the another and not that of a change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of s. 187 of the IT Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the AACs finding that full depreciation would be allowable to the firm that existed during the second period ?'2. So far as questions No. 1 and 2 are concerned, they revolve around one a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›