Allahabad Court February 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.
Nagendra Rai Alias Narendra Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1021; 1998CriLJ3316
S. K. Phaujdar, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his detention under an order dated 24.4.97 recorded by District Magistrate, Azamgarh, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (for short, the N.S.A.). His continued detention under the said provision is also challenged and a prayer has been made for quashing the order of detention and for a direction for his release forthwith.2. The order in question was recorded by the District Magistrate. Azamgarh, on 24.4.1997 which stated that it was necessary for the prevention of acts prejudicial to public order to detain the present petitioner in custody under the N.S.A. of 1980. The detention order was appended with the grounds of detention (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It was stated therein that on 19.4.1997 at about 7 p.m. the applicant had taken out the licensed gun of his brother and had gone to the house of Ram Samajh due to some old enmity over fishing. It was ...
Manglesh Singh Vs. Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1059
O.P. Garg, J.1. Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner--Manglesh Singh, was initially appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 16.7.1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 in the establishment of Judge, Family Court. Allahabad. Subsequently by Order, dated 1.9,1992. the petitioner was reverted to the post of Copyist in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1.500. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of this Court on 12.3.1997. Against this order) the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 13299 of 1997. This writ petition was finally allowed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Katju on 21.5.1997. It was observed that in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladqi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (55) FLR 304,...
Varanasi Petroleum Dealers' Association, Varanasi Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1341
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. Without expressing any thing on merits, this writ petition by the Varanasi Petroleum Dealers' Association, Varanasi, may not hold for considering that any fundamental right of an individual in the trade has been affected. The complaint is that whereas there used to be a joint Inspection, a Government order has converted that into individual Inspections and whereas earlier there used to be laboratories provided at five places for sample testing and analysing complaints on the quality of petroleum products, two laboratories now provided at Lucknow and Agra do not carry the sanction of the Central Government.2. No Individual case has been pointed out to the Court for the purposes of examining on a writ of certiorari that anyone's fundamental right indeed may have been Infringed.3. The petition by an Association, in a matter like the present one, may be good theory but provides no fact to examine person injury of fundamental rights suffered by any identi...
H.P. Dandiwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR281(All)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's case fell within the mischief of Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1976-77. In the relevant previous year to the assessment year in dispute, the assessee was a 'non-resident' and was assessed in the status of an individual. He was employed as a captain in the Merchant Navy and was posted at Hong Kong. The assessee remitted certain sums to the home savings bank account of his wife at Allahabad maintained with the Central Bank of India and out of the sums so received, the assessee's wife invested certain amounts in fixed deposits with various companies, on which she earned an income of Rs. 14,6...
Canara Bank Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Ministry of Labour) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ511All
R.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally on merits with the consent of parties under the Rules of the Court.2. This writ petition is moved by the petitioner Canara Bank praying that the impugned order dated November 28, 1996 and award dated April 4, 1997 (Annexures 13 and 15 respectively to the writ petition) passed by the Respondent No.2 be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable order, direction or writ which this Court may deem fit and proper may be issued.3. The brief facts which have led to filing of this writ petition are as follows:4. One Lakhan Singh was having a loan account under D.I.R.No.ll of 1986 at New, Mandi, Hathras branch of Canara Bank. On August 31, 1987 he went to the said branch for depositing a loan instalment amounting to Rs. 35,000/-. He handed over the said money to Sri S.K. Verma, the Respondent No.3 who was posted as clerk in the said branch. Sri Verma did not depos...
Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi Vs. Sanyukta Kshettriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR334]; (1999)ILLJ172All
S.H.A. Raza and B.K. Sharma, JJ. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in Sanyukta Kshettriya Gramin Bank, Mau was charged for abuse of delegated lending powers despite the instructions/rules issued by the Head Office, disregarding the rules and regulations while sanctioning/disbursing the loan and also purposely doing the act detrimental to the office of the Bank, acting as unbecoming officer of the Bank and also not abiding the Regulation 19 of Staff Service Regulations, 1980. The enquiry officer Sri M.N. Ojha conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority exonerating the petitioner from all charges as none of the charges were proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority after perusing the document as well as the deposition of the witnesses during the enquiry disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer pertaining to the charges levelled against the petitioner, and passed an order of punishment stopping one annual increme...
Northern India Textile Resarch Association Vs. Presiding Officer Indus ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2110
S.L. Saraf, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. An application under Section 6-E (2) (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was made by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal (V), Meerut for approval of dismissal order. When the said matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunals, a reference under Section 4-K was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal (V), Meerut for adjudication. In that view of the matter the petitioner wanted to withdraw the application under Section 6-E (2) (b) of the Act and also made a prayer for the same. The said application was, however, rejected by the Tribunal. By the said dismissal order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.3. I have considered the case and find that two parallel proceedings relating to the same matter cannot be allowed to continue. The point raised in the application under Section 6-E (2) (b) of the Act can be agitated and finally disposed of in a more effective manner, if the proceeding...
Kanpur Income Tax Bar Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]236ITR848(All); [1998]99TAXMAN266(All)
Agarwal, J.This is petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by the Kanpur Income Tax Bar Association through its secretary Naveen Bhargava and Mukesh Srivastava a Chartered Accountant. The petitioners claimed to be legal practitioners in Taxation laws and they challenge a clarification contained in paragraph 3 of a letter dated 25-11-1997 issued by Sri A.K. Batabyal, Member (Investigation), Central Board of Direct Taxes. The following reliefs have been claimed in this writ petition:-'Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the letter/communication dated 25-11-1997 (Annexure-2) and the record of the decision of Government of India, if any, and to quash the same.issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, not to give effect to the 3rd paragraph of the aforesaid communication/letter dated 25-11-1997 (Annexure-2).issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus restra...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tulsi Ram Sita Ram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(All)407
BY THE COURT :At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law relating to the asst. yr. 1979-80 for the opinion of this Court under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal was justified in holding that two separate assessments are to be made for the returns so filed by the assessee particularly when some old partners continued in the reconstituted firm'.2. A notice of this reference was sent under registered post to the respondent assessee, which appears to have been served as the acknowledgement due receipt is available on record. List has been revised. No one has appeared for the assessee. We, have, therefore, heard learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.3. For the assessment year in question, the assessee filed two returns, one for the period Dewali, 1977 to 13th July, 1978 and the other for the period 14th July, 1978 to Dewali 1978. ...
Shiv Raj and Others Vs. Addl. Collector (Supplies), Ghaziabad and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC730
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, respondent No. 1, allowing the revision filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Lekhpal submitted a report on 5.8.1995 to the Tahsildar that the petitioners had encroached upon the land of the GaonSabha Dasna, District Ghaziabad. The Tahsildar/Assistant Collector. Ghaziabad took the proceedings under Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners. He issued notice in Form 49A to the petitioners Indicating that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of plot Nos. 3298. 3299. 3300. 3301 and 3303 of the village in question. The petitioners filed objection. They stated that they are Jatav by caste and belong to scheduled caste. They have been in possession over the land in dispute prior to the year 1985 and have acquired Bhumidhori rights under Section 122B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »