Allahabad Court December 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.
Rajesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2388
ORDER1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to command Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut and the Station House Officer, Brahmpuri, District Meerut respectively) to close down the history-sheet which was opened in 1983 against them, and to discontinue surveillance and domiciliary visits to them and their family.2. They asset, inter alia, that petitioner No. 1 is S. A., aged about 32 years and is presently serving as Storekeeper in Venus Cement Factory Ltd., Dehradun and Petitioner No, 2 is S. Sc., aged about 28 years and is presently serving as an Accountant in the same Venus Cement Factory Ltd. Dehradun; that they hail from a well to do, cultured and respectable Thakur family of District Meerut, whose antecedents have been all along above board; that the members of their family reside at Brahmpuri, Meerut; that in the year 1983 both of them were falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 395, IPC and their Criminal Appeal is pending be...
J.K. Eint Works Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1322
Binod Kumar Roy and R.K. Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner, who is a partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing and sale of bricks, has come up with a prayer to declare that the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (67 of 1957) and the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 do not apply for extracting earth from the surface of the bhumidhari land vested and settled with it and to quash the Recovery Certificates dated 20.12.1995 and 17.9.1996 (as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from realising the royalty for the assessment years 1993-94. 1994-95. 1995-96 and 1996-97 from the petitioner as well as from taking any step against the petitioner.2. Sri J.C. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by placing reliance on paragraph 7 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., JT 1993 (1) SC 448, conten...
Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC600
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application praying for refund of a certain amount being the amount of purchase tax deposited by the petitioner under protest for the period 1986-87 to 1992-93. This petition had earlier been heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Om Prakash and Hon'ble S. L. Saraf, JJ. Since then Hon'ble Om Prakash J., has been transferred as Chief Justice of Kerala, hence this application has been transferred to this Court on nomination by Hon'ble Chief Justice.3. The decision of the Division Bench is in Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 UPTC 624, The controversy is regarding paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment which reads :'So far as the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,02.34,845.52 paise is concerned, the petitioner company may make a proper application for the refund thereof to respondent No. 2 who will consider the same in the light of the observations mad...
Satya Oil Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC646
D. S. Sinha and B. K. Sharma, JJ.1. Heard Sri P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.2. The petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. By the order dated 26th April, 1990,a copy whereof is Annexure I to the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner has been suspended on the order of the District Magistrate dated 24th April, 1990.3. In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is asserted that the order of the District Magistrate dated 24th April, 1990. was never served on the petitioner despite repeated requests made to the authorities concerned. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it is asserted that neither any charge-sheet nor any snow-cause notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order of suspension.4. On 30th May, 1990, the Court granted a month's time to the respondents to file counter affidavit, but the respondents failed to file the count...
Rajjo Alias GingIn and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2996
K.D. Shahi, J.1. These three appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 20-3-1980 passed by Sri N.N. Sharma, the then learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. N. 228 of 1979, whereby Rajjo alias Gingin and Radhey Shyam (hereinafter called as appellants) were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under Section 394, IPC and life imprisonment to Rajjo alias Gingin under Section 302, IPC and also life imprisonment to Radhey Shayam under Section 302/34, IPC.2. Against his conviction and sentence Radhey Shyam has filed Criminal Appeal No. 793 of 12980 while Rajjo alias Gingin filed criminal appeal No. 663 of 1980 against his conviction and sentence. The State was not satisfied by this judgment and it has also filed Government Appeal No. 1239 of 1980 for the enhancement of the sentence. It is alleged in the memorandum of appeal that in the offence under Section 302, IPC the accused has been awarded life imprisonment which is highly inadequate whereas rigorous imprisonment of 7 ye...
Vinay Kumar, Avadhesh Kumar Vs. District Agriculture Officer/Fertilize ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC6
B.K. Roy and R.K. Singh, JJ. 1. The prayer of the petitioner-firm, who has sued through its partner Avadhesh Kumar, is to command respondent No. 1 to decide its application dated 25.1.1996, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition.2. The perusal of the document appended as Annexure-1 shows as follows. In furtherance of the directions made by the Collector of the District Jaunpur (i) the Additional District Agriculture Officer, Jaunpur, (ii) the Pargana Magistrate. Machhlishahr and (iii) the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Jaunpur, on 21.7.1994 inspected the premises of the petitioner during which Stock Register, Distribution Register, licence, etc. was not produced nor was the Stock Board exhibited and accordingly recommended penal action against the petitioner. Taking into account the seriousness of the irregularities vide Office Order No. 1812 dated 22.7.1994, the licence of the petitioner was suspended under Section 31 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the p...
Baleshwar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC125
B.K. Roy and R.K. Singh, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioners, who are owners of Saw Mills of district. Basti, is to quash Rule 3 of the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rule. 1978 and to restrain the respondents from interfering with running of their Saw Mills.2. Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned Rule is liable to be quashed inasmuch as it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners, who are having a three horse power operating Saw Mills to carry on their trade/business as contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in asking the petitioners for registration of their Saw Mills ; that in view of Rule 12 of the Rules since the petitioners were engaged in ordinary operation in the domestic carpentry restriction cannot be imposed and accordingly, the petitioners moved Respondent No. 2. Prabhagiya Nideshak Samagik Vaniki Van Prabhag, Basti but he observed that he will see th...
Hind Majdoor Sabha, U.P. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC126; (2000)IILLJ583All
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Two tube-well operators filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act through the present petitioner contending that respondent-employers illegally made deductions from their wages for the period between 11.10.1998 and 31.7.1989 and prayed for refund of the said amount together with compensation. The application was allowed by order dated 21.12.1989 directing refund of deductions and compensation. After the recovery was in progress under Section 15(3) of the said Act and recovery warrants had been issued, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the said Act on 21.3.1990. As there was delay of about two months, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported by an affidavit was filed. Employees filed objection to the application for condonation of delay. The respondent No- 5 by his order dated 12.7.1990 allowed the said application upon condoning the delay and the appeal was admitted. Challe...
Shiv Prasad Serhaiya Vs. Passenger Tax Officer and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1126
Ravi S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ.1. This petition has been brought by certiorari action complaining that the order of 17.3.1998, passed by the Passenger Tax Officer, Banda, is ex parte and illegal. By this order, the vehicle has been assessed to passenger tax under the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatrikar) Adhiniyam, 1962. The Court is not going into the aspects of the merits for the order. Suffice it to say that the assessing authority, aforesaid, records that the vehicle was not in use only for the reason that the engine of the vehicle was damaged. Taking into consideration that the motor vehicle from time to time ceased to be used under the circumstances and repair of the vehicle being one of the circumstances, the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the passenger tax was liable to be paid on the ground that repair of the vehicle may not be a circumstance for which the tax may be waived. This is the context of the order of theassessing authority. The order may be right or may be ...
Dr. Avneesh Kumar and Others Vs. Director, Indian Veterinary Reserch I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1337
S. H. A. Raza, J.1. The controversy pertains to the promotion to the extent of 33- 1/3 per cent quota from the departmental quota as provided in Technical Service Rules made by theDepartmental Promotion Committee to promote the eligible candidates from Grade T-5 to Grade T-6.2. It has been alleged that afterperusing the service record of thepetitioners and verifying the same,the Departmental PromotionCommittee has recommended thepromotion of the petitioners. TheDirector accepted therecommendation of the DepartmentalPromotion Committee and issued thepromotion order dated 28th June,1996 through his Chief AdministrativeOfficer, by which all the petitionerswere promoted from T-5 grade to T-6grade. The order indicated that on therecommendation of the DepartmentalPromotion Committee, the Directorwas pleased to promote thepetitioners from T-5 grade to the postmentioned against each, in the scaleof Rs. 2,200-4,000, provisionally in atemporary capacity with effect fromthe dates they assumed the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »