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.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT17(All)
1. This petition is on behalf of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipur, Hardwar, a public sector undertaking. The order sought to be impugned is dated 27-2-1998, Annexure A3 to the Writ Petition. This is an order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun. A list of Bought Out Item has been finalised and the order has been issued as such, as a matter of abundant caution. In this order, it is clarified that for finalisation of Bought Out Items, any assessment made is still provisional on other counts. The impugned order mentions that other issues shall be dealt with in separate orders in due course.2. Beyond the record of the Writ Petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved the High Power Level Committee for raising the issues which are raised in this Writ Petition and learned counsel submits that this Petition may be kept pending and taken up in due course as the Supreme Court has held it so in a certain case.3. Learned Counse...
Yogendra Nath JaIn Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Meerut and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1186
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard.2. The order dated 6.7.92 passed by the respondent No. 1 in an appeal filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is under challenge in this writ petition.3. Respondent No. 2 after purchasing Taj Building, Cantt., Meerut, on 27.10.76 moved application for release of the disputed portion after serving the notice as contemplated by the proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The need alleged was that the accommodation already in occupation of the landlord-respondent No. 1 was inadequate and insufficient to cater the requirement of his family members, who were twenty-one in number. It was further alleged that the tenant-in-Chief, Nemnath, the brother of the petitioner has constructed his own house in the same city and has shifted therein as such, no objection against the release application was maintainable in view of Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The petitioner was alleged ...
Udaybhan Shuki Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ274
ORDER1. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has made a prayer for his immediate release from custody, for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the C.J.M. Azarngarh for action under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against respondents No. 3 and 4 and other police officers for proceeding for contempt of Court against respondents No. 3 and 4 other police officers responsible for the arrest of the petitioner and for compensation and costs for his illegal arrest and detention. It is not disputed that the applicant was released on bail in relation to the criminal case for which he was allegedly arrested and as such the prayer for immediate release is not one to be considered in this application. The other prayers would be considered in the light of the averments, counter averments and the law on the point.2. The respondents arrayed in the petition were : (i) The State of U.P. through the Home Secretary, (ii) The Senior Superintende...
Lal Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4679
B.K. Sharma, JJ.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 1979 has been preferred by accused Lalman Singh against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114, I.P.C. and Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 1979 has been preferred by Pratap Singh accused against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter awarded by Sri L.R. Kohli, the then III Additional Sessions judge, Kanpur on 25-4-1979 in S.T. No. 211 of 1978, State v. Pratap Singh.2. Both the appeals, being against the same judgment, were connected. During the pendency of the above appeals, Pratap Singh-accused-appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 1979 had died and so his appeal has abated and there remains only the present Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 1979 by Lalman Singh against his conviction and sentence for disposal on merits.3. The topography of the spot, as narrated in the judgment of the trial Court and undisputed before...
Shiv Ram Misra Vs. Controller, Legal Metrology, U.P., Lucknow and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1885
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Yasharth holding brief of Sri Ajit Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Kushwaha standing counsel representing the State Authorities.2. Relying upon Annexure-4 to the writ petition which purports to be an extract from Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services. U. P., the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the suspension of the petitioner pending investigation, enquiry and trial of a criminal case is impermissible in that there fs no such provision in Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services. U. P. Sri K, S. Kushwaha standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, U. P. as initially published with the Appointment Department Notification No. 2627/11-264 dated August 3. 1932 was amended by means of Notification No. 18.4.1976. Karmik-1 dated October 30, 1976 sub-rule (2) of Rule 1A of which specifically empowers the Appointing Authority to suspend-...
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(78)LC269(Allahabad)
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. The order sought to be impugned, which aggrieves the petitioner, is dated 27.2.1998 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition).2. This order has been issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-1, Khatima, respondent No. 7.3. The petitioner accepts that in some matters Appeals have been filed and are pending and in some matters hearing has concluded but judgment is awaited. Learned Counsel fairly concedes that any interim order which could be passed by the High Court can be passed by the authority which is seized of the Appeals. In the context of the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Appellate Authority and seek consideration of an ad-interim prayer. Rushing in a writ petition before the High Court with an alternate remedy available was mis-conceived.4. The writ petition is consigned to the record and dismis...
Mrs. S. Rathi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1207
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf , JJ.1. In this case on three occasions, the learned standing counsel was granted time to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. In the circumstances, we treat the allegations in the writ petition to be correct. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to provide separate schools with vocational training, hostels with regular medical checkup facilities, etc. In every district of Uttar Pradesh for the children of lepers. In paragraph 4 of the petition, the petitioner referred to three leprosy homes in Allahabad which are not getting any assistance from the Government except the medicines which too is at the free will of hospital authorities. In paragraph 5. It is stated that on certain occasions, the lepers are getting clothing and food from N.G.Os.2. In our opinion, the relief claimed for is just and is in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution which has been ...
Bajaj Carpet Industries Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998LC270(Allahabad); 1998(101)ELT27(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has prayed for two-fold reliefs. Firstly, that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 22-10-1997 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and secondly, a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to refund Rs. 15,75,276.56 P deposited by the petitioners in terms of Section 35F as the aforesaid Tribunal has failed to give expeditiously the decision on the issue of classification of the products manufactured by the petitioner.3. The petitioner is allegedly engaged in the manufacture of Jute Floor Covering. The case of the petitioner is that the product manufactured by it should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 5703.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Chapter sub-heading 5703.90 of the said Act. It may be observed that the Commissioner of Central Excise (J) Meerut, the second respondent has held that the products manufact...
Madan Mohan Vs. City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1153
J. C. Gupta, J.1. Both these Writ Petition Nos. 43480/97 and 8067/98 are taken up together.2. Writ Petition No. 43480/97 has been filed by the sitting tenant Madan Mohan against the order dated 9.5.97, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer-respondent No. 1, while Writ Petition No. 8067/98 has been filed by the landlord against the order of the revisional court condoning the delay in filing the revision against the order of release made in favour of the landlord on the basis of the order declaring vacancy.3. Since the existence of order of release is dependent upon the order declaring vacancy, I take up Writ Petition No. 43480/97 first.4. For the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, it is not necessary to narrate facts in detail excepting that undisputedly the petitioner has been tenant in the accommodation in question since 1955. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that even an order of allotment was made in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whose ...
Ashwani Kumar Kohli Vs. Smt. Anita
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1531; II(1998)DMC664
M.L. Singhal, J.1. This is husband's first appeal, directed against the Judgment and order, dated 15th November, 1996. rendered by Shri V. P. Gaur, Judge Family Court, Barellly in M. M. Petition No. 358 of 1985, Ashwant Kumar Kohli v. Smt. Anita, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dismissing his petition for divorce.2. Admittedly the parties were married on 11th May, 1981 as per Hindu customs and rites at Barellly. The plaintiff-appellant's grievances are that after the marriage, the respondent stayed with the appellant for a very short period and continued to make regular visits to her parent's house. The respondent was carrying pregnancy with someone else and hence in the first week of August, 1981 she went to the house of her parents and Illegally aborted the child. This created great mental shock to the plaintiff-appellant, and is a serious act of cruelty to the appellant. Thereafter she did not come to the appellant's house and after Intervention of common relations...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »