Allahabad Court March 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.
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1663
B.K. Roy and B.K. Sharma, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 21.9.1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur (as contained in Annexure-2) as well as the appellate order dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Commissioner, Barellly (as contained in Annexure-1) dismissing his Appeal No. 5 of 1988 preferred against the order of the District Magistrate.2. The portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner figured as an accused under Section 302, I.P.C. in Crime Case No. 175 of 1984, police station Rosa, district Shahjahanpur for allegedly having committed murder of one Ramendra through his licenced gun. A report was submitted by the police before the District Magistrate that the petitioner is giving threats to the witnesses of the aforementioned crime case by asking them not to depose against him by showing his gun. Vide order dated 16.5.85 the District Magistrate suspended the licence of his D.B.B.L. gun and asked him to show cause as ...
Mukta Prasad (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and Another Vs. Xvith Addtional Dis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1690
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. This is landlord's petition.This writ petition is directed for quashing the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively as contained in Annexures-8 and 11 to the writpetition.2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in premises No. 8/36, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 3. The petitioner-landlords moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the disputed shop in their favour on the ground that the said accommodation is bona fide required by the landlords for their residential use as number of their family members have increased and the accommodation which was in their accommodation was not sufficient to cater their need. The application was contested by the tenant and the defence was that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and there is sufficient accommodation with them.3. On appraisal of the evidence filed by respective parties, both the courts below have recorded...
D.K. JaIn Vs. Addl. Collector (Revenue and Finance), A.D.M. (Revenue a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1928
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 prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.7.1990 passed by respondent No. 2 holding that document in question was lease-deed and chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35 of Schedule 1B of the Stamp Act.3. It appears that the document, copy of which is contained as Annexure-2. to the writ petition, was proposed to be executed between Babu Lal s/o Mohan r/o Village Harkana Garhi, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, district Lucknow and M/s. Jain Brick Field. Harkana Garhi. Lucknow. through its partner Sri D. K. Jain. Question of payment of stamp duty arose and the petitioner filed application under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for adjudication. Reference under Section 56 of the Act was made by the A.D.M. (Revenue and Finance), Lucknow, to the C...
Uttar Pradesh Shramik Basti Jankalyan Seva Samiti, Kanpur City and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC786
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and seeks to represent its members. It is alleged that the 13 members named in the writ petition were occupying two room apartments constructed by the State Government for the residents of the industrial workers. According to the petitioners, there are two categories--one is lower income group (L.I.G.) and the other is higher income group (H.I.G.). The rent of L.I.G. was Rs. 16 and that of H.I.G. was Rs. 24.50. It is alleged that the said flats were allotted to some industrial workers who are either dead or have left. The petitioners have not disclosed how, on what condition and in which capacity they have come to occupy the said quarters. It is alleged in the writ petition that they are occupying the said flats for a very long time. In Para 10 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the quarters were initially allotted to other persons who have either left their empl...
Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava Vs. Registrar, High Court of Judicature at ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC801; (1999)1UPLBEC125
Mrs. S. Dikshit, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.80 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is neither bona fide nor has been passed in public interest. It has further been challenged on the ground of having been passed arbitrarily with mala fide intention as the same is based on no material whatsoever. The order is also alleged to be punitive in nature, hence the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the same.2. The facts, in brief, relevant for the purposes of the present petition are as follows:The petitioner entered into ministerial service of the civil court, Lucknow, on 21.11.45. Initially he joined the post in officiating capacity as Copyist and thereafter was confirmed on 1.11.48. Due to his satisfactory and good performance, he was pro...
Dharam Pal Yadav Vs. Election Commission of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1366
M. Katju and Aloke Chakrabarti, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the Election Commission dated 28.2.1998 whereby the petitioner's representation dated 24.2.1998 praying for re-poll has been rejected, and for a direction to the respondents to cancel the polling of the polling stations mentioned in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, and for a further direction to hold re-poll of the said polling stations at the earliest before recounting begins in nine Sambhal Parliamentary Constituencies of District Moradabad.2. It appears that the election was held for the aforesaid Parliamentary Constituency on 22.2.1998 from 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The mai;n contest was between the petitioner, Shri Dharam Pal Yadav and respondent No. 3, Shri Mulayam Singh Vadav. In the writ petition, various allegations have been made in paragraph Nos. 7 to 17 of the writ petition as well as in the Supplementary affidavit regarding alleged malpractices and ...
Tota Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1410
D.K. Seth, J.1. Against an order passed under Section 11 (2) read with Section 12 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960. the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 13 thereof. The said appeal being numbered 45 of 1985 arising out of the order dated 23rd February, 1985 passed in Case No. 12 of 1982 was heard on 16th January, 1986 and was disposed of by an order dated 24th January, 1986.2. Mr. Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that by reason of promulgation of the U. P. imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, since been replaced by U. P. Act No. 3 of 1986, there was an amendment of Section 13. By virtue of such an amendment, the jurisdiction to hear an appeal by District Judge was replaced by that of Commissioner. The text of the said Ordinance is quoted below :'The Uttar Pradesh imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment)Ordinance, 1986 (U. P. Ordinance No. 3 o...
Rishi Joshi Vs. University of Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2098
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner appeared in B.A. I examination held in 1995 in Psychology, Economic and English Literaturer. He was dissatisfied with the result of Economic paper II. Therefore, he applied for scrutiny on 14.11.1996. Later on, he applied for and appeared in the second examination in all the three papers in English. However, on scrutiny there was no change in the number secured by the petitioner in Economics II. In the second examination of English, the petitioner had improved substantially. On this background the petitioner claims that in view of provisions 'Contained Regulation 14 of Chapter 31 of the University Calendar it was incumbent upon the Allahabad University to revaluate the answer book of Economics paper-II. On the other hand, the University had illegally exercised the power conferred on it under Regulation 13 in that it had only scrutinised with regard to the marks allotted/awarded without revaluating. It has been strongly contended that the petitioner would ...
Surendra Singh Negi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2347
O.P. Garg, J.1. These are seven connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involving though familiar constitutional question based on Articles 14 and 16, which are covered by the terse and emphatic enunciation of law by the Apex Court, the setting too is familiar as also the substitutions. For these reasons, a brief narration of facts and a common judgment in all the seven cases with suffice.2. 1862 posts of constables in Central Industries Security Force (for short 'CSIF') in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 were advertised in October 1996. These posts were spread over various states of the country. Out of these 1892 posts, 115 posts were allocated to the CISF unit of Food Corporation of India, Gorakhpur and the same number posts, i.e., 115 were allocated in CISF unit of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Jhansi. Separate Boards for recruitment/selection of the candidates of the two units of Gorakhpur and Jhansi were constituted. The selection process commenced at...
Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(78)LC264(Allahabad)
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. Messrs Samtel Color Limited, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad has filed the present writ petition consequent upon the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad, having assessed the petitioner and fixed a liability of Rs. 11,04,533.67 as differential customs duty and Rs. 1,98,817.25 as countervailing duty and, in addition, interest, penalty and personal penalty on the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders on 2 January, 1998 before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), district Ghaziabad and sought an ad interim stay on this assessment. The contention before the court is that the Department is 'pressing hard' on the petitioner to deposit the amount while the appeals and the stay applications are pending consideration.2. The petitioner acknowledges that under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 a provision to which a reference has been made during submissions, should the appellate aut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›