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.
Dr. Raj Pati Chauhan Vs. Vice-chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Univer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1056; (1998)2UPLBEC912
S.H.A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.1. The petitioner Dr. Raj Pati Chauhan, who is a Reader in the Department of Education in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, while staking his claim to function as Head of Department of the Education in the University, prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.1.1998 by means of which the respondent No. 3 has been asked to continue as Head of Department. No doubt, the respondent No. 3, being the only Professor is the seniormost among all the teachers in the department of education in the University. Dr. Vachaspati Dwivedi, the respondent No. 3 attained the age of superannuation on 4.1.1998. He was allowed to continue as such till 30.6.1998. May be for the reason that he attained the age of superannuation in the mid-session. In that regard, the Statute 16.24, which is relevant for the purposes of deciding the case, is reproduced below:'16.24. (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University gov...
Khurshed Alam Lari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC874
R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.1. In this petition by order dated 16.1.1998 time was granted to the learned Counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit with a clear understanding that the petition may be disposed of finally on 9.2.1998. However, no counter affidavit has been filed though sufficient time was given. As the question is purely legal, in our opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of finally at this stage even without counter affidavit.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Khurshed Alam Lari was elected as Chairman of Nagar Panchayat Lar, district Deoria. By the impugned order dated 9.10.1997, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner under Section 48 (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 19.16 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as to why the petitioner may not be removed from the office of Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Lar, district Deoria. On the same date, another order was passed, which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition, by w...
Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: 1998LC275(Allahabad); 1999(105)ELT11(All)
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners preferred two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad on 19-9-1997 which were registered as Appeals No. 230-CE/97/Appl. Alld. and 232 CE/97/Appl/Alld. Along with the appeals it is said that the petitioners had also filed stay and waiver applications praying for waiver of the pre-deposit and the stay of the disputed amount of excise duty in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The case of the petitioner is that instead of passing any order on the waiver and stay applications, the Appellate Authority heard the appeals on merits on 25-8-1997 and the orders were reserved. Without availing the decision in the appeals of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Gorkhpur, third respondent has proceeded with the realisation of the disputed demand inasmuch as certain goods of the petitioner have been detained. It is said that when this action was taken the petitioner immediate...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O.N.G.C.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN56(All)
ORDER1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed at the instance of the Commissioner, Meerut.2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.3. Originally, an assessment under section 143(3) was completed against the respondent-assessee wherein the income return was accepted. Later, the assessment order was set aside under section 263 of the Act. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 10(6)(viia) of the Act which was subsequently withdrawn by the Income Tax Officer in the assessment order which was made in pursuance to the directions contained in the order passed under section 263. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order which was allowed on the view that since the order under section 263 itself had been set aside on appeal by the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order could be allowed to stand. Against the appellate order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed and the plea take...
Chandra Prakash Arora Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC918; 1998CriLJ2846
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the admitted tenant of the property with several prayers including for (i) the quashing of the order dated 30.4.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) ; (ii) for quashing of the order dated 17.4.1997 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition (iii) for quashing of the attachment order dated 20.1.1997 passed by the City Magistrate, Saharanpur (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and (iv) for quashing of the criminal proceeding under Section 145/146. Cr. P.C. registered as case No. 1 of 1997.2. The main dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and that too with regard to immovable property (right of carrying of business in the undisputed premises).3. Admittedly the petitioner Chandra Prakash Arora is the tenant of the premises from the owner of the same, namely, Khurana State Agency Private Limited since very long time and has been carrying business in the same...
imran Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2888
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 19-12-97 passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 730/96, State v. Imran, under Section 376, I.P.C, P.S. Modinagar, Dist. Ghaziabad, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the accused Imran guilty of the charge under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' R. I.2. Initially the mailer was posted for deciding the bail application of the accused, but on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself was heard on merits and is being decided herewith.3. The prosecution case started on the basis of a F.I.R. dated 2-5-96 lodged by Abdul Malik. He has alleged that on 2-5-97, his minor daughter Km. Reshma, aged about 4 years was looking after the cattle outside the house. At about 6 p.m. when the complainant noticed, she was not visible. Dilshad and Jamil Ahmad, resident of the Mohalla of the complainant search for the child. When they went a little closure i...
Gyan Chand JaIn and Others Vs. Xiiith Addl. District and Sessions Judg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1130
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.12.1989 of Munsif, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 67 of 1988 and also the appellate order dated 22.1.1990 of XIIIth Additional District Judge. Agra in Misc. Appeal No. 253 of 1989. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. Ram Babu Jain (original respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) filed O.S. No. 227 of 1985 against the petitioners Gyan Chand Jain, Umesh Chand Jain and Padam Chand Jain for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering intheir possession in any manner over the ground floor of house No. 35 or causing any damage or throwing any dirty article therein. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the petitioners (defendants) were the owner-landlords of house No. 35 and he was a tenant thereof in the ground floor. The plaintiff had been paying rent to the defendants regularly bu...
Ram Samuj (Decd.) Through L.R. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1189
ORDERR.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is a review application moved under Chapter V, Rule 12 of High Court Rules to review the order passed in a regular writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court on 29.2.1996. Prayer has also been made that delay in filing the review application be condoned. The review application was filed on 4.9.1996. Admittedly, it is not filed within time. The ground for not filing the review application within time as shown is that the applicant was suffering from gastric trouble and hernia and was advised not to travel and move from the bed. The applicant remained ill for four months. Thereafter he came to Allahabad and filed the application. No medical certificate has been attached and the application on this ground cannot be entertained. In my view, there are no sufficient cause to condone the delay as no medical certificate has been filed and on this ground the application is not entertain able. Even otherwise the petitioner wants to dig...
Dukharan and Others Vs. Balmukund Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1217
R. K. Mahajan, J.1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 2.3.1995. The order dated 2.3.1995 is quoted below :^^i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/kokvksadks lquk x;k Aizfri{kh& izfroknh us orZekuvihy esa m- iz- tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZrvihy mi'kfer ?kksf'kr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gS A i{kdkjksa ds vf/koDrkvksadks Lohdkj gS fd orZeku vihy esa f'k lacU/kh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa fookn gSA lacaf/kr Hkwfe m- iz- tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vf/klwfprdh tk pqdh gS A rn~uqlkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 ds izkfo/kku ds vUrxZr ewyokn ,oa vihy mi'kfer gks pqdh gS Arn~uqlkj vihy mi'kfer gksus ds vk/kkjij fujLr dh tkrh gS A** 2. Shri M. A. Qadeer. learned counsel for the appellants has sought recall of the order aforesaid by filing an application on 10.10.1995. The application is hopelessly time-barred. Mr. Qadeer submits that even it is time-barred but thereis no limit of time for filing the review application in the interest of justice. He has s...
Devendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs. District Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1413
S.R. Singh, J.1. Impugned herein is the order dated 24.8.1996 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court-11. Kanpur Nagar. By order dated 24.8.1996, the learned Judge. Small Cause Court rejected Application No. 153C filed by the petitioner--Devendra Kumar under Order XXX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the final hearing stage after two witnesses of the plaintiff respondent had already been examined holding, with reference to the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner and co-defendant Yogendra Kumar Mishra, that the defendant-petitioner was a partner in the firm--Kumar Medical Stores. Ramaipur. Post Ramaipur. district Kanpur Nagar. It was also held that the application was filed with a view to protracting the disposal of the suit. Revision preferred against the said order came to be dismissed aide order dated 17.2.1997 holding that the application under Order XXX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable since it was not moved befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »