Allahabad Court September 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.
Anil Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(74)LC493(Allahabad)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The only relief sought in this writ petition by the petitioners who had grown tobacco crop during the crop year, J977-78 is that the respondents be directed not to realise excise duty on the stdck of tobacco from the petitioners in respect of the crop year 1977-78.3. The contention of the petitioners is that they used the tobacco for agricultural purposes and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the duty in view of Item 4.1 (7) to the 1st Schedule, appended to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly, the Act). It is correct to say that if the tobacco is used for agricultural purposes then no duty will be leviable in view of Item 4.1(7). However, in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is contended that the petitioners had opted for first clearance on payment of duty on their own accord and, accordingly, D.D.I. was issued to the petitioners, which they had signed and on which some of the petitioners had put their thumb impressions. It is den...
Tech Invest (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(74)LC495(Allahabad)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition raises a short question: whether the product: glass textolite sheet manufactured by the petitioner, falls under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, as averred by the respondents or under Tariff Item No. 68--a residuary Tariff item, as averred by the petitioner for the purpose of levying the excise duty.3. The Tariff Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. : 1997(91)ELT13(SC) and then the Supreme Court held:Entry 15A(2) deals with articles of materials which are described in sub-item (1). The material which is described in sub-item (1) falls under the category of artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. The different products and processes by which they are derived are described in sub-entry (1). Sub-entry (2) describes Articles of this material in different forms such as ...
Shashi Bhushan Asthana Vs. U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC94
D.K. Seth, J.1. Petitioner-Shashi Bhushan Asthana has filed this application for review of the order dated 15th September. 1997 passed in this Writ Petition No. 18653 of1996, on the ground that the subject-matter involved in the writ petition was cognizable by a Division Bench and as such could not have been decided by the single Judge and therefore the order dated 15th September. 1997 passed by me sitting singly is without jurisdiction. No other ground, however, has been taken in the review application. Though, however, either in the application for review or in the affidavit in support thereof, the petitioner did not disclose that he had filed a Special Appeal before Hon'ble Division Bench against the said order dated 15th September,1997, but in course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J. P. Singh, Advocate admitted at the Bar that a Special Appeal against the said order was preferred and was dismissed by the Division Bench. He, however, could not produce the or...
Abdul Gaffar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC706b
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Both the learned counsel have agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.3. It appears that with regard to pond No. 83 (old) and 394 (new), lease was granted In favour of the petitioner in the 1983 for ten years which has expired. Thereafter further extension was granted to the petitioner upto January, 1998. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to renew the fishery lease of the petitioner relating to the aforesaid pond which is going to expire in January. 1998 for another five years. It has also been prayed that for this purpose, an application has been filed by him on various dates which may be directed to be decided. The application has also been filed for claim of renewal of the lease.4. In our opinion, the settlement of ponds to exercise the right of fishery cannot be done by renewal or private negotiation. This Cou...
Ramapati Tripurari Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1903
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner alleges that he had retired in 1989 but his gratuity was withheld on the ground that he did not hand over the charge as cashier of the Civil Court Clerks' Co-operative Society.2. Mr. K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner subits that gratuity of a Government Servant can be withheld only when an employee is charged with the offence of murdering and the same can not be withheld on any other charge. He relies on paragraph 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules. 1951 in support of the said contention. He also relies on instruction No. 166 relating to Drawing and Disbersing Officer Regarding Procedure for Finalisation of pension Gases wherein it has been pointed out in a note that the arrears of water and electricity charges recoverable by local bodies and Cooperative Society dues are not to be treated as dues to Government. No recovery of such dues can be made from the death cum-retirement gratuity He also relies on. the decisions in the case o...
Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust Vs. Dental Council of India and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1738
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to accord approval to the petitioner's dental college with annual batch of 100 students instead of 60 students.2. We have heard Sri Swami Dayal and Sri Yasharth, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Janardan Sahai for the Dental council of India, respondent No-1 and learned Standing counsel for the Central Government.3. The petitioner trust has established a Dental college at Meerut. For this purpose it applied in the prescribed proforma to the Union of India for permission to commence teaching for academic year 1996-97. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner meets or exceeds the qualifying criteria as stipulated in the guidelines of the Dental Council of India regarding establishment of New Dental Colleges and requested for sanction at strength of 100 students. It is also alleged in paragraph 2 that both the inspection committees set up by the res...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. the Distt. Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1915
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was transferred from the post of Amin Munsif's court to the post of Misc. clerk in another Munsif's court.2. Sri Dhan Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order of transfer was punitive and the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and without holding any enquiry, therefore, it should be quashed.3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel contends that the said order cannot be held to be punitive. By the reason of said order, the petitioner would neither suffer reduction in rank nor reduction in pay. Both are Class III posts. Neither petitioner's seniority nor other incidence of service has been affected by the impugned order.4. The petitioner earlier has moved a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 14322 of 1995 against the said order which has since been disposed of by order dated 24-5-1995 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. His representation thereafter wa...
Manoj Kumar Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Hardwar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC188
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.2. The writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the parties, counsel at length.3. Tata Truck No. 407, registration No. UP 10A/5336 was Intercepted by forest authorities of district Hardwar and it was found that wood was being unauthorisedly transported. A case under Section 26(f), 41/42, of the Forest Act was registered. The present revisionist, Manoj Kumar, moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, for release of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by order, dated 29.1.97 allowed the application for release on certain conditions mentioned in the order. The forest authorities did not release the vehicle in compliance of the order dated 29.1.97. Therefore, application dated 5.2.97 was moved on which the learned Magistrate passed the order, dated 5.2.97 issuing show cause notice to the forest authorities for non-compliance of th...
Vinod Shankar Shukla Vs. Conservator of Forest, Social Forestee Circle ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC346; (1997)3UPLBEC1974
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Being aggrieved by order of his transfer/posting, the petitioner, who claims to be Forest Ranger, has filed this writ petition. Two counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavits in reply thereto.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions in support of the writ petition, viz., (i) the transfer order is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government ; and (ii) the transfer order contains a stigma and. therefore, amounts to punishment. Learned standing counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 have disputed the above contentions.3. In June, 1996, the petitioner was transferred from Mirzapur Forest Division to Allahabad and by order dated 8.8.1996 he was posted at Handia by the Divisional Forest Officer. Allahabad. The petitioner made a representation against the said order dated 8.8.1996 on the basis of which he was transferred from Handia and was posted at Meja in the same dis...
Viranjee Prasad Vs. Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Mahrajganj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC473; (1997)3UPLBEC2151
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as work agent in the Public Works Department, in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 27.5.1960 in the pay scale of Rs. 55-65. Subsequently, it is alleged that he was posted as work supervisor with effect from March. 1974 in the pay scale of Rs. 330-495.2. Sri J. K. Tewari, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, contends that he continued in the said post of work supervisor and, therefore, by reason of Rule 56 (a) Proviso of Financial Hand Book the petitioner is eligible to continue till the age of 60 years on the basis of amendment incorporated on 8th July, 1987 in the said Rule.3. Sri Parihar learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1,500 in the year 1986 and he had retired on the said scale. Therefore, he cannot claim to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned standing counsel has relied on the relevant Rules and Circulargoverning the service of work charge employees...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »