Allahabad Court March 1998 Judgments
Moharram Ali and Another Vs. Prescribed Authority, Allahabad and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1438
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioners' counsel and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the learned standing counsel.2. Some of the undisputed facts are that the landlord-petitioners filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the prescribed authority against Mohd. Farooq respondent No. 2. real brother of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The application for release of the landlord-petitioners was allowed and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2-tenant was also dismissed on 22.7.84. Thereafter Mohd. Farooq-respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 14615 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed on merits on 22.11.1984 and an undertaking was given on behalf of the tenant-Mohd. Farooq that he would vacate the building in question within six months. When the undertaking given by the tenant was not respected, the petitioner moved a contempt petition in this Court as well as filed an application under Section 23 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1514
D. S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri A. P. Shahi, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh,learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Vinay Malviya. learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.2. At an auction for privilege to sell liquor and Bhang, held on 26th March, 1984, the petitioners were the highest bidders. Their bid was for Rs. 6,01,000. It appears, the bids of the petitioners did not attain finality, and there was re-auction on 4th April, 1984 wherein the highest bid was for Rs. 5,75,000. The authorities held this bid to be Inadequate. This led to third auction, which was held on 6th April, 1984. In the third auction, the highest bid offered was for a sum of Rs. 4,05,000. It was accepted. Obviously, there is a difference of Rs. 1,96,000 between the bid of the petitioners and the bid offered at the third auction on 6th April, 1984 and accepted. This difference was considered to be a loss to the State, and is sought to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Murari Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2191; 1999CriLJ3712
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 14.3.1991 passed by District Magistrate, Sitapur, suspending the licence of the petitioner's DBBL gun, during the pendency of the Case Crime No. 214/86 under Section 147/148/149/307 of the I.P.C.3. It appears that licence of the petitioner was renewed for the period ending on 31.12.1986. A police report dated 31.12.1984 was submitted against the petitioner, on the basis of which show-cause notice was issued to him by licencing authority, calling upon him to show-cause as to why licence of his DBBL gun be not cancelled. Petitioner, on receipt of the notice, submitted his explanation. District Magistrate, thereafter, by his order dated 27.2.1985 suspended the licence of the petitioner for a period of one year. In the meantime, petitioner was acquitt...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Nayan Singh Vs. Allahabad University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1502
B. Dikshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 13.3.1997 cancelling the result of B.A. Part II examination of the year 1996 or petitioner and debarring him from appearing in subsequent examination of 1997 by University of Allahabad for using unfair means. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed this writ petition on three grounds, which can be better summarised as follows:Firstly, the Ordinance 1.3 or Ordinances of use of unfair means and causing disturbances in examination under Chapter XXVIII of Allahabad University Ordinances is mandatory yet it has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is bad;Secondly, the charge levelled against the petitioner for use of unfair means are vague and, therefore, also the order is bad; andThirdly, the petitioner has been held guilty and punished without recording satisfaction by the 'unfair means committee'. The argument in respect of first ground has substance but before taking up the first ground it...
Tag this Judgment!Right Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Chief Commr. Ce and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(78)LC268(Allahabad)
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. Petitioner, M/s. Right Steel (Private) Limited is in arrears of payment of Excise Department amounting to Rs. 21,96,669/-, referred to in Annexure '3', this has been indicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 18.3.1998 from Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun. In paragraph 6 it is stated that of this amount, Rs. 2,57,719/- has been paid.2. The submission before the Court is that the Court issue a Mandamus to the Central Excise Department so arrayed as respondents that they may accept payment of the Central Excise dues due against the petitioner in instalments. From the record, the Court finds that the. petitioner had opted for the compounded levy. In so far as payment in instalments is concerned, the petitioner refers to a Circular of 17.12.1997. The matter of granting convenience of payment on instalments is subject matter of evaluation by the Commissioner of Central Excise concerned, on merits. It is will not be proper for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Awadesh Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1658; [1998(79)FLR355]
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The order dated 17.10.1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) imposing a penalty of dismissal from service and the order dated 18.12.1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner were challenged in this writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge levelled against the petitioner being of not serious In nature, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate. Reference was made to the charge levelled against the petitioner as contained in the charge-sheet (Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit). It is contended that from the materials available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner could not respond to the order to 'fall in' on the first call and thereafter the petitioner came to the spot after four or five minutes and also replied to the queries of Company Commander. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts, the charge itself was not very serious which c...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Sharma Vs. District Magistrate, Aligarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1720
S.K. Phaujdar and N.S. Gupta, JJ. 1. The above two matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this single order, as the detention orders in both these cases are based on one and the same case and similar questions of law have also been raised to challenge the detention orders.2. Case Crime No. 105 of 1997 for offences under Sections 467. 468. 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E read with Section 120B of the I.P.C was initiated at police station. Civil Lines, Allgarh, on 15.4.97 at 6.20 a.m., upon a raid and recovery that took place on the previous night at about 11.00 p.m. It is stated that a printing press under the name and style Graphics & Printers Press, mohalla Mathura Nagar, was raided by the Circle Officer, Civil Lines, Allgarh on a source information. When the police party reached the press, they found the outer shutter partly open. People inside were talking among themselves. There was electric light inside the press. One of the inmates was heard uttering 'Deepak, th...
Tag this Judgment!Waqf Rani Saltanat Begam, Lucknow Vs. Civil Judge, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1840
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner mainly prays for Issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.8.1997 in so far as it directs for fixation of the date for final hearing, without disposing of the application for interim relief, which according to the petitioner amounts to an order refusing to exercise the Jurisdiction to grant ad interim injunction, and for quashing the orders dated 9.10.1996 and 15.6.1996 passed by respondent No. 3. Prayer for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No. 3 to function as Controller and to directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the reference filed by the petitioner within the time specified by this Court were also made.2. The dispute relates to a 'Waqf Al-al-aulad', known as 'Waqf Hamid Begam Saltanat Manzil, Hamid Road. Lucknow' (for short the 'waqf in question').' The waqf in question was created b...
Tag this Judgment!Ashu Tamara Alias Ashish Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ272
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act dated 1 -8-1997, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was followed by the grounds of detention as well and it was stated in the said grounds that on 13-5-97 one Arvind was allegedly murdered by certain assailants belonging to the Muslim community. It is alleged that the petitioner and others gave the incident a communal colour and with a view to avenge the murder of Arvind they had stopped a bus of U. P. Roadways, punctured its tyres with knife, threatened the passengers with katta and set fire to the bus. The passengers ran here and there in a panic and in the fire not only the bus but important documents concerning the journey were burnt to ashes as also the belongings of the passengers. A su...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1190
Binod Kumar Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has come up with the following prayers : (i) to quash the order dated 3.3.98 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra, as contained in Annexure-5, bearing No. 317/Khanij, dated March 3, 1998, (ii) the respondents be restrained from not interfering with the mining operation of the petitioner in relation to an area measuring 84.387 acres of Gata No. 26 in village Chiknipur. Tahsil Bah, district Agra.2. The portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass :'A lease for three years of the aforementioned land was granted by the mining authorities on January 6. 1995 in terms of the orders passed by theAddl. District Magistrate as contained in Annexure-1. The said lease was to expire on 5th January. 1998. Before the expiry of his lease, the petitioner filed an application for renewal on 5th July, 1997, as contained in Annexure-3. However, the Apex Court, through a Judgment dated December 12, 1996 in Codavarman Thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »