Allahabad Court November 1998 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.
Crystal and Chemical Laboratories Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]119STC365(All)
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. Section 12-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which provides for furnishing or giving additional evidence reads as under :'The assessee shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the appellate authority or the Tribunal except where the evidence sought to be adduced is evidence, which the assessing authority had wrongly refused to admit or which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him before the assessing authority, and in every such case, upon the additional evidence being taken on record, reasonable opportunity for challenge or rebuttal shall be given to the Commissioner.'2. In the instant case the applicant-revisionist sold certain goods to the tune of Rs. 1,25,818.50 but did not file form III-C(5) (which has been mentioned as form III-D in the order of Tribunal) before assessing authority. As according to the revisionist-applicant the same was not available to him at...
Smt. Chameli Devi and Others Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Agra and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC335
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.4.78 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R. C. and E. O.| releasing the disputed property in favour of the landlords respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the order dated 9.3.79 rejecting the petitioners' application moved under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the order dated 14.1.1982 passed by the revisional court dismissing the petitioners' revision.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case, it may be relevant to mention a few facts. The subject-matter of dispute is shop No. 33A. Pratappura, Ajmer Road. Agra. Jamuna Prasad the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the respondent No. 6 was in occupation of the said shop as tenant at a monthly rent of rupees 15. The landlords filed an application dated 12.4.1978 for releasing the shop in question in their favour on the ground that the shop wa...
Jag Mohan Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC448
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioner has prayed that the Bandh in U. P. whose call has been given by some political parties for 9.11.1998 be declared illegal.2. The Supreme Court in Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar, JT 1997 (9) SC 101, has upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court in Bharatkumar Palicha v. State, AIR 1997 Ker 291, by which Bandh was held to beunconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between a call for Bundh and a call for a general strike or hartal. A Bandh interferes with the exercise of the fundamental rights of the people and hence the Supreme Court held that there cannot be any right to call or enforce a Bandh which interferes with the fundamental freedom of the people in addition to causing national loss in many ways.3. This petition is, therefore, disposed of on the same terms and directions as in the aforesaid decision ...
Jagdish Tripathi Vs. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Al ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC669
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner alleges that a vacancy in the post of Lecturer had occurred on 30.6.1985. The petitioner had appeared in the M.A. examination in Philosophy in March, 1985, but the result was declared on 30.9.1985. But, however, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, despite being senior to respondent No. 5, the Committee of Management had promoted respondent No. 5 who acquired the same qualification earlier than 30.6.1985.2. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the promotion granted to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner having appeared in theM.A. examination in March, 1985. and he was declared successful in September, 1985. the petitioner should be deemed to have qualified before 30.6.1985 inasmuch as the declaration of result relates back when he had completed the' examination, therefore, the petitioner's candidature cannot be ignored on account of any disqualification and he being senior to respondent No. 5 by reason of ...
Gokul (Decd.) Through L.R. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC329
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner. Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dated 30.3.1990 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and decreeing the suit and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.6.1992, affirming the said order in second appeal.2. The following pedigree is admitted to the parties :Govinda|__________________________________________________________________________| |Bhagirathi Ahir Gokul Ahir (P)Widow Smt. Rani Dulaiya(died in 1984)||Smt. Chukharia (R. 3) (daughter)= Ram Kishun (husband)3. Bhagirathi was tenure-holder of the land in dispute. He died 40 years ago and was succeeded by his widow Smt. Rani Dulaiya. She died in the year 1984. After death of Rani Dulaiya, her daughter Smt. Chukharia, respondent No. 3, filed suit for declaration under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming that she is the sole tenure-holder of the land in dispute as her father Bhagirathi was the so...
Suresh Pal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3365
D. P. Mohapatra, C.J. 1. The petitioner, Suresh Pal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayers to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6-2-1998 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad (respondet No. 2) directing his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to set him at liberty forthwith.2. The facts of the case, relevant for determination of the questions raised in the petition, may be stated thus: The petitioner was arrested on 24-12-1997 in connection with Case Crime No. 346/97 under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/34, I.P.C. of Police Station Masoori, district Ghaziabad. While he was in custody, the detention order dated 6-2-1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, was served on him on 8-2-1998 along with grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention it was stated ...
Tarik Mashkur Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1069
R.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1-3-1998, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2 directing detention of the petitioner and the order dated 20-3-1998, Annexure 8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1, under Section 3(2) of National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) rejecting the representation of the petitioner and for further direction to the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. The reasons on which basis respondent No. 2 formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the order dated 1-3-1998 are shown in the grounds served on the petitioner along with the order of detention. It is stated therein that on 23-2-1998, petitioner while driving his Maruti car No. DDI 0024 carelessly and with fact speed on Mathura-Budaun Road within the limits of police station Kotwali, Budaun, hit the scooter of Balbir Singh, Sports Officer, on account of which he suffered injur...
Ram Das Upadhayay Vs. Deputy Director of Education and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC315
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The Writ Petition No. 23829 of 1995 was disposed by a detail reasoned order on 31.7.1998. The case was argued by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Saxena at length and the points raised by him finds mentioned in the second paragraph of the said order.2. The petitioner has filed this Review Application No. 52533 of 1998 through Shri M. P. Singh learned counsel.3. The contention of Mr. Singh that the determination or finding in the said order to the extent that the petitioner was in fourth position and that other persons were seniors to the petitioner was an error apparent on the face of the record. He contends that the facts, which were not taken into consideration by the Court when passing the order dated 31.7.1998, are summarised in paragraph 14 of the review application. Relying on the said statement, he contends that by reason of the said fact it is apparent that the petitioner was at serial number 1 and the senior-most teacher. Therefore, on the basis of such fact, the finding in ...
Maharaj Singh Vs. State Public Services Tribunal-i, Lucknow and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC371; (1999)1UPLBEC157
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which the petitioner had submitted his reply, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheets dated 2nd of April, 1983 and 23rd of June, 1983, which is apparent from the enquiry report dated 21st of September, 1983. On the basis thereof a notice dated 31st of December, 1983 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner had shown cause. After considering the same, by an order dated 27th of February, 1984 dismissal from service was inflicted as punishment. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 118/1 of 1985. By a decision dated 5th of May, 1993, the claim petition was dismissed. In the enquiry report, the petitioner was found partially guilty of the charges levelled in the first c...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ651All; (1999)1UPLBEC463
ORDERShitla Pd. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited) against the respondents the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for issuing writ of certiorari to quash the order dated January 14, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The second relief sought for is writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the aforesaid order.2. Annexure-17 to the writ petition is an order passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, the Sub-Regional Office, Dehradoon, exercising power under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act only). By this order the authority concerned has determined the money due from the petitioner which is a covered Unit under Code No. UP/ 1261, Dehradoon un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »