Allahabad Court July 1997 Judgments
Shahid Ali and Others Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC166
J.C. Gupta, J.1. This is tenants' writ petition for quashing the judgment and decree dated 28.8.89 passed by Judge. Small Causes Court. Moradabad, respondent No. 1 and confirmed by the judgment dated 11.5.90 passed by Xllth Additional District Judge. Moradabad, respondent No. 2.2. Respondent No. 3, the landlord, filed suit for rent and ejectment against the tenants/petitioners seeking eviction on two grounds, namely ; that defendant No. 1 has sub-let a portion of the tenanted accommodation to defendant No. 2 and that the tenant has constructed a new partition wall in the said house in November, 1975 dividing the accommodation in two separate portions and thereby the value and utility of the building have been diminished and the same has also disfigured the building.3. The defence was that no portion has been sub-let to defendant No. 2 who is his real younger brother and he has been in occupation since the inception of tenancy. The allegation of causing material or structural alteration...
Tag this Judgment!Ans KalIn Nal Koop Chalak Association, Fatehpur Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC564
J.C. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed by 'Ans Kalin Nal Koop Chatak Association', a registered Association, which is affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, on behalf of its five members, namely. Jagdish Kumar Trivedi. Ramesh Chandra Singh Verma. Ram Bilas Berlya, Nand Lal and Bishan Lal.2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the termination orders dated 23.11.91 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the aforesaid persons have been terminated. The said persons were initially appointed on 6.2.85 as part time Tubewell Operators. It is alleged that although at the time of appointment they were asked to operate the Tubewell only for a period of two and a half hours per day but in practice from the very first day of their appointment, they were required to discharge eight hours duty as were being discharged by full time Tubewell Operators. The said persons were Initially appointed purely on temporary basis, but they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishwanath Seth
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR366(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the assessment year 1961-62 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, dated November 8, 1965, for the assessment year 1961-62 ceased to exist in view of the fact that the assessment itself ceased to exist and that the Income-tax Officer should have passed a fresh separate order under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the time of making fresh assessment under Section 23(3)/27 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'2. The facts, as stated in the statement of the case, are that an assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 was framed under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (briefly, the Act), on November 8, 1965. On that very date, the Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 26A of the Act refus...
Tag this Judgment!Hriday Ram Vs. Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari/Karyakram Adhikari and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1721
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was filed on a contention that the petitioner was appointed as Choukidar on daily wage basis in office of Pariyojana Adhikari, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Dumariaganj, Basti by the respondent No. 1. When petitioner's service was terminated in December, 1988 he made a representation. Thereafter an order was passed on 14-3-1989 by the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Puspahar, Uttar Pradesh (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) directing reinstatement of the petitioner, After fortnight or such reinstatement, the petitioner was again Terminated by order dated 29-3-1989 at Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and they have also annexed a copy of the order dated 28-3-1989 (Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit) which is the basis of the order impugned in the writ petition as is apparent from the Annexure No. 5 of the writ petition.3. After considering the re...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramesh Nand Lal Vs. Special Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1569
ORDERI.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Criminal Revision under Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 24-7-1997 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1996 State v. Atul and Ors. under Section 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C.2. By the impugned order dated 24-7-1997 the learned Sessions Judge has ordered to close the prosecution evidence as the prosecution has failed to produce one Mr. Balram Mishra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the investigating Officer of the case and nowadays is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Vigilance Department under the Director, Vigilance, Uttar Pradesh. It has been stated in the impugned order that the prosecution has failed to produce Sri Balram Misra despite several opportunities being given. It has also been mentioned by the learned Special Judge that the special feature of this case has been that whenever the warrants had been issued to ensure the presence of Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Tasawwar Ansari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3356
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-3-1996 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions, Judge, Varanasi in S.T. Cr. Case No. 635 of 1993, State v. Tasawwar Ansari, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused aforesaid under Sections 21/27-A of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' R.I. on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. On failure to pay the fine, two years' additional imprisonment shall have to be undergone by the accused. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. He has also been directed that a free copy of the judgment shall be made available to him.2. The case of the prosecution is that Sri R. K. Lal, Excise Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi accompanied by Sarva Sri R.K. Singh, Lallan Tewari, V.K. Singh, R.K. Srivastava, S.N. Tripathi, Gupteshwar Singh and Rajendra Pathak, after receiving an information that a person Tasawwar Ansari, r/o House No. 2/ 159, Ward No. 2, P.S. Sayeed Raza, Di...
Tag this Judgment!Ashiwani Kumar Srivastava Vs. Anwarul Hassan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3821
ORDERO.P. Garg, J.1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer that the respondents be punished for disobeying the orders passed by this Court in second appeal No. 2451 of 1984 arising out of Original Suit No. 668 of 1978.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the services of late Ashiwani Kumar Srivastava, who was an employee of New India Assurance Company Ltd. were terminated in the year 1972. He filed Civil Suit No. 568 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad challenging the order of termination. The aforesaid suit was dismissed. He filed appeal, which was allowed on 31-7-1984 by the I Additional District Judge, Allahabad Following order was passed by the appellate Court :-The appeal is allowed with costs throughout, the judgment along with the decree is set aside and it is hereby declared that the plaintiff still continues in service of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and is ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Guru Investment (North India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT8(All)
ORDERS.L. Saraf, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Negi holding brief on behalf of Shri Sudhir Harkauli.2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of Scientific instruments like Pressure Gauges, Gauge testers, dial thermometers and process control instruments etc., and the accessories in its factory at Sahibabad. A demand notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the period from 1-10-1983 to 25-7-1985 was issued for Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,21,198.90. The petitioner raised objection to the said notice of demand alleging that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of the facts by the petitioner and the demand raised by the respondents was also time barred. The said contention of the petitioner was upheld by the Tribunal by its order dated 22-9-1995.3. While raising the demand the Department also issued notice under Rule 173Q for imposing penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs in contravention of the Central Excise Rules,...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Akhilesh Pratap Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Maharajganj and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC567
D.K. Seth, J.1. Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 21.5.1997 by which the petitioner was directed to deposit his arms in the police station, Nautanwa. district Maharajganj on the ground that the petitioner's licence was neither suspended nor cancelled, on the other hand the same has been renewed til! the year 2000. He points out from the order dated 16.5.96 by which the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled and if it is not submitted within time, suitable order will be passed, that the said order does not contain any reason. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner has submitted two applications by which the petitioner had asked for certain papers which was not supplied to him and by reason thereof he was unable to submit his reply earlier.2. Be that as it may, even if no reply is submitted, in that event, it was open to the respondents to pass appropriate order for suspension or revocation as it mi...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prakash Singh and anr. Vs. Vice-chancellor, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All66; (1997)3UPLBEC2096
ORDERShitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the relief for quashing the decision by means of Resolution No. 26 dated 7-5-97 of the Executive Council (Annexure-2 to the petition), amended rules approved in its meeting dated 14-6-97 (Annexure 3 to the petition) and further for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 4, the Management Committee of the Institution to hold the entrance test for the year 1997-98 for the course of B. Sc. Agriculture I.2. A preliminary objection has been made by Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the University that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach the Chancellor of the Universities under the provisions of U. P. Universities Act, 1973 under Section 68 of the aforesaid Act.2A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the alternative remedy as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »