Allahabad Court February 1998 Judgments
Dina Nath and Another Vs. Dan Behari Lal (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC90
R.K. Singh, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th August, 1977 passed by Civil Judge, Court No. 3. Agra in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1973 arising out of the Original Suit No. 137 of 1971 decided by II Additional Munsif, Agra by its judgment dated 22nd January, 1973.2. One Smt. Jagrani (died) executed a sale deed dated 20th February, 1968 in favour of the appellants Deena Nath and Mahavir Prasad both sons of Atmaram Pandey of Tal Firoz Khan. Agra. Smt. Jagrani died on 4th November, 1969. The plaintiff-respondents Shyam Prasad and others filed Original Suit No. 137of 1971 on 16th of February. 1971 alleging that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud on Smt. Jagrani. 3. The plaintlff-repondents alleged that Smt. Jagrani at the alleged time of execution of the sale deed in question was a very old lady and she had become invalid and lost eye-sight as well and was practically blind. She had become very weak and frail and lost memory and had no capaci...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1145; (1998)2UPLBEC1386
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Petitioners came to this Court challenging the orders dated 27.5.1991 and 25.6.1991, terminating their services at Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition as also for quashing the advertisement dated 27.3.1991 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and claimed regularisation of their services.2. In the writ petition case made out is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed on 4.10.1990 on daily wage basis, petitioner Nos. 8 to 10 were appointed on 20.2.1991 and the petitioner No. 11 was appointed in place of one Sri Surendra Kumar Gaur, who did not join the service. After the names of the petitioners were approved by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 24.2.1991, the respondent No. 3 appointed the petitioners again on 18.4.1991 for three months. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2, published advertisement in the daily newspaper 'Amrit Prabhat' dated 27.3.1991, whereunder applications were invited for appointment on the posts of registration ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Alias Ghantoori Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4199
N.S. Gupta, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the pettioner Manoj alias Ghantoori has challenged the validity of detention order dated 19-6-1997, passed by the then District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur), under Section 3/1 of the National Security Act.2. The grounds of detention upon which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority viz the District Magistrate was based were as follows- 1) That the petitioner had actively participated along with his other associates in Case Crime No. 376 of 1997, under Sections 147/148/149/307/452/323/506, I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment on 2-6-97 at about 8.30 A.M. and was responsible for committing heinous offence of gang rape as also attempting to commit murder by forming an unlawful assembly in the intervening night of 1/2, 6-97 at 9.00 P.M. in Kasba Kashipur.2) That on the next day viz. 2-6-97, at about 8.30 P.M. in the night the petitioner again visited the house of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(62)ECC25; 1998LC272(Allahabad); 1998(102)ELT553(All)
ORDER1. M/s. Century Laminating Co. Ltd., Ghaziabad has filed the present writ petition, in effect, seeking a prayer that the order of date 27-1-1998 (Annexure P-l to the writ petition) be quashed. This is an order by which under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purposes of exacting an amount of Rs. 9,59,362/-, goods to the value of Rs. 32,35,200/- have been detained.2. There are two aspects of the matter, which are relevant. An order was passed on 28-10-1997. The petitioner refers to this Order (an order-in-original) C. No. V(30) Dem/15/97/6827/24-12-1997 dated 28-10-1997 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner contends that this order was received on 26-12-1997. The petitioner acknowledges that this order is open to appeal which has not been filed so far and yet it may be filed until 25th March, 1998.3. Then there is an order of 29-4-1997 (Annexure P/5). This order on adjudication was passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad. It confirms three...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Anjuman Islamiya Mariyadih and anr. Vs. Assis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1000
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners allege that they have raised a dispute with regard to the continuance in office of an office-bearer but the same was decided by an order dated 30.9.1997 which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. According to them the Asstt. Registrar was Incompetent in deciding the said dispute within the meaning of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it was incumbent on him to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority.2. Sri N.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the garb of deciding the dispute with regard to membership, the question under Section 25 of the Act cannot be gone into by the Assistant Registrar.3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the registration certificate was account to be renewed and the same was allowed. After the certificate of registration was renewed, an objection was filed by the petitioners themselves by order d...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kirat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4186
1. The three respondents stood charged for offences under Sections 302/307/323, I.P.C. all read with Section 34, I.P.C. There had been a further charge against Ram Surat Singh alone for offences under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 277 of 1978. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, had held the trial and by his judgment dated 8-2-1980 found that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the three accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt and as such they were held not guilty and were acquitted. Respondents Ram Kirat and Ram Murat were on bail during the trial. They were discharged from their bail bonds. Respondent Ram Surat was in custody during the trial and he was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with some other case.2. The appeal against acquittal was presented on behalf of the State on 3-7-1980 by the Public Prosecutor/Government Advocate and by an order dated 28-7-1980, recorded by Hon. B.N. Katju, J., the appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998LC274(Allahabad); 1998(103)ELT220(All)
ORDER1. The apprehension which the petitioner has had submitted through counsel apparently is not on record.2. All that has happened is that in reference to an assessment proceedings being an order of the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad dated 13 November, 1997, a duty of Rs. 14,16,730.40 (sic), a penalty of Rs. 7 lacs had been imposed. Against this assessment order, a remedy of an appeal has been provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the matter of deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal Section 35F provides the procedure and modalities. The context of the matter is not the alternate remedy, but the deposit of the duty. In this regard also the proviso to the aforesaid section provides that if an assessee applies seeking a waiver of the duty which is to be deposited along with the memoranda filing of appeal, the appellate authority may for reasons recorded grant the waiver and entertain appeal.3. During the pendency of the appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC950
Mrs. Shobha Dlkshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.1979 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control). Lucknow by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner-tenant has been rejected. It has also been prayed that the order dated 5.11.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow dismissing the revision against the order dated 2.3.1979 be also quashed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Mohan Singh was allotted a shop for commercial purposes situated on the main road between fourth and fifth lane on Ashok Marg, Lucknow where he claims to have been carrying on his business for last 28 years and paying the rent regularly to the landlord-respondent No. 4 Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal. On 23.4.1975 respondent No. 3 one Sri Zaki Ali Mirza applied for allotment of the premises in question on the ground that since the said shop is lying locked, hence it should be deemed vacant and be allotted to the applicant Zaki A...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1023
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.92, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, opposite party No. 2, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the impugned order of termination is wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and against the principles of natural justice, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. This order has further been challenged on the ground no departmental enquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner and if the same was conducted it was behind his back and no opportunity was given to him to defend himself, therefore the settled principles of natural justice have been grossly violated.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Syaha Navls, now re-designated as Assistant Accountant, in the treasury of Faizabad, vide orders dated 1.3.74 on a re...
Tag this Judgment!Lekh Raj Sindhi Vs. Ram Lakhan Gupta and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1031
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 1985 Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by 5th Addl. District Judge, Gonda by which the order dated 15.12.1984 passed by the prescribed authority, releasing the shop in dispute in favour of the landlord petitioner has been set aside.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that the petitioner who was working with Indian Railway on the post of Senior Clerkat Lucknow had let out the shop in dispute in the year 1978 for sometime to the opposite parties. His sons Chunni Lal and Vijay Kumar were also studying at that time but when he retired on 30th March, 1983 in order to supplement his meagre pension by doing some business in the said shop as also to establish his sons Chunni Lal aged 22 years and Vijay Kumar aged 20 years who were doing nothing after completing their education, he moved an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »