Allahabad Court April 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.
Tebariwal Trading Co. and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4136
J.C. Mishra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Tebariwal Trading Company and its proprietor for a writ of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 17-1-98 in Crime No. 17 of 1998 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called 'the Act' for convenience) P.S. Kotwali, district Gorakhpur.2. The prosecution case is that the respondent No. 3 Additional District Agriculture Officer, Gorakhpur inspected the godown of the petitioners on 30-8-97 and took sample of D.A.P. fertiliser. Respondent No. 2 prepared a memo in Form J which indicates that the sample was taken from a stitched bag and divided in three parts one of which was given to petitioner No. 2. The sample was received in Central Fertiliser Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad on 12-12-97 and it was analysed on 31-12-97. On analysis the sample was found to be non-standard. The laboratory communicated the result of the analysis to respondent N...
U.P. Agro Bhathat and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3749
J.C. Mishra, J.1. This petition has been filed by U.P. Agro Bhathat and its Branch Sales Officer for a writ of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No. 780 of 1997 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act PS. Gulharia, district Gorakhpur and mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest petitioner No. 2.2. The prosecution case as contained in the First Information Report lodged on 6th October, 1997 is that the respondent No. 3, Additional District Agriculture Officer, Gorakhpur inspected the shop of the petitioner 'U. P. Agro' and took a sample of D.A.P. fertilizer, which on analysis was found to be deficient in phosphorous and nitrogen. It is alleged that sale of non-standard fertilizer is violation of Fertilizer Control Orders, 1985 punishable under Section 3/7 E.C. Act.3. Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the sample of D.A.P. fertilizer was drawn from machine stitched sealed bag fertilizer supplied by the manufact...
Susheel Kumar Vs. L.i.C. of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ793; 1998(2)AWC1370
S.L. Saraf, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one Sushil Kumar father of Late Alok Kumar Sah against the Life Insurance Corporation of India challenging the repudiation of the claim under the policy of life insurance. The case of the petitioner is that his son Alok Kumar who was of 25 years of age got himself insured with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The policy being numbered 23002314 commenced from 8th August. 1987 for the assured sum of Rs. 51,000 with an annual premium of Rs. 687.90. The first premium was paid on 31st August, 1987. Unfortunately, the said Sri A. K. Sah, who was an engineer in the Indian Telephone Industries, Allahabad fell ill with some heart ailment. He was taken to Appollo Hospital. Madras, where he ultimately died on 25.2.1988. The death occurred due to the left ventricular failure after open heart surgery. A copy of the medical certificate has been attached with the writ petition. The said certificate further discloses that the deceased was s...
Dwarika Rai Vs. Chairman, Sanyukta Kshetriya GramIn Bank, Azamgarh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1659
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This writ petition Involves the following questions for determination by this Court:'Whether the petitioner who was selected by the Selection Committee against the vacancies available in the year 1987 and the recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded to the Director of Board which was not finalised can be clubbed with the candidates who had no right to compete in the year 1987 and that too for the vacancies which occurred after the year 1987?''Whether the delay on the part of authorities In not taking decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee would disentitle the petitioner even to claim seniority according to the guidelines Issued for 13 vacancies in the year 1987?' 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :'Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned letter dated 4.12.1996 Issued by the Chairman, Sanyukta Kshetrlya Gramln Bank (Annexure-7). Issue a writ, order or d...
Kamla Shanker and Others Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Mirzapur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1708
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners or from interfering with title and not to transfer the property to some one else.2. Shri S. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) but there is no prayer for ejectment as is contemplated under Section 209 of the said Act on person occupying the land without title. On the other hand. It appears to be under Section 208 of the said Act wherein without suing for ejectment, the landholder may sue for injunction with or without compensation ; or for the repair of the waste or damage, caused to the holding.3. Learned trial court and revisional court had found that the names of defendants have been recorded in the revenue record while that the petitioners do not find any p...
Murli Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1780; 1999CriLJ1900
G.S.N. Tripathi and N.S. Gupta, JJ.1. Both these writ petitions have been consolidated as they arise out of the same incident. Hence they are being decided together by this judgment.2. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed with a prayer that the Court may pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioners at liberty forthwith and further be pleased to quash the detention order passed by the Distt. Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 6.5.97 (Annexure-I to the writ petitions).3. The grounds supplied on the same day (Annexure-I to the petitions) contain the allegation that on 10.3.97 at about 12.30 p.m. (day time) on the Meerut Road, near the Tractor Agency where the traffic is always very congested and constant, Mohd. Tahir, who happened to be the Dy. Chairman of Food Corporation of India Ltd. Trade Union, was ill and was going with his wife Smt. Bala Devi on a rickshaw for hospita...
Narendra Pal Singh and Another Vs. District Judge, Etawah and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1879
D.K. Seth, J.1. An application under Order IX. Rule 13 for setting aside ex parte order dated 30.7.1984 was Hied on 11.10.1984 on the ground that no summons were served on the petitioners-defendants. The learned trial court by its order dated 6.8.1986 passed in Case No. 49 of 1984 allowed the said application and set aside the ex parts decree. A revision being Civil Revision No. 96 of 86 was moved. By an order dated 23.10.1986. learned District Judge. Etawah had allowed the said revision. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. Mr. Ajal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision order is wholly illegal and the learned Court below has failed toexercise its jurisdiction in that he had allowed the revision and held that the application was filed beyond time and that the defendants had knowledge of the suit and the decree and that too all the defendants had filed vakalatnama on 18.2.1980.3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitione...
Mishra D.K. and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR282]; (1999)ILLJ697All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Pursuant to an inquiry held against the petitioner he was found guilty of both the charges levelled against him and punishment of dismissal without notice was proposed in the inquiry report dated July 18, 1983. After giving opportunity to the delinquent with regard to the quantum of proposed punishment, the punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon him. Against the said punishment an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. By the appellate order the quantum of punishment was reduced by stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. This order dated November 11, 1983, contained in Annexure-8 to the petition, was challenged through a reference under Industrial Disputes Act, being Industrial Dispute No. 147 of 1988. By an Award dated July 30, 1990, contained in Annexure-14 to the petition, the Industrial Tribunal had held that the punishment was justified after recording finding that both the charges were proved. In this background the petitioner has moved this writ...
Pramod Tewari Vs. Kalyan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3824
ORDER1. The present writ petition has been filed by the leader of the Congress Legislature Party in U.P. Assembly. Through this writ petition he has made a prayer for an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 40 and 41 (the Home Secretary, U.P. and the State of U.P. through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow) to register criminal cases against respondents No. 1 to 39 for offences under Sections 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is a further prayer that a further direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.B.I.') to enquire into the matter and submit a report with regard to the incidents from 19-10-1997 to 31-10-1997 and from 21-2-1998 to 26-2-1998 involving what was described as 'purchasing the ML. As.' by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and involvement of respondents No. 1 to 39 in the act of accepting illegal gratification.2....
Shyam Lal (Decd.) Through Lrs. Vs. Raghuvir Prasad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1248
R.N. Ray, J. 1. In this appeal, it has been contended that the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Jhansi, was wrong and perverse and it should be set aside and the order of the trial court be restored. It has been contended that the appellant has filed an application under Order XXI. Rule 16. C.P.C. wherein it was contended that he has purchased the property in question by sale deed dated 23.11.1969, and his name has been inserted as decree holder. It has been contended that he purchased the property by registered sale deed which was the decretal property and the decree was purchased by him at price of Rs. 49. There was a direction to the Court below for ascertaining whether the present appellant has purchased- the very property which was the subject-matter of the decree of the Court below.2. The finding has been given that the purchaser of the decree has purchased the disputed property of the suit. Now, it is to be seen whether he validly purchased the decree without any a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »