Allahabad Court August 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.
Hindustan Safety Glass Works Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT288(All); [1998]111STC661(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and the Standing Counsel appearing for the department.2. The only controversy raised in the instant revision is whether glass screen manufactured by Hindustan Safety Glass Works, Bamrauli, would fall under item 39 of the notification dated 20th May, 1976 or be treated as unclassified item.3. The counsel for the applicant argued that this is an unclassified item not falling within entry 39 aforesaid which speaks of all goods and wares made of glass. According to the applicant the honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to decide in the case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 ; 1986 UPTC 1345 and in the case of the applicant itself that glass mirrors cannot be classified as other glass and glassware set forth in tariff item No. 23A, Schedule I, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Supreme Court decided that the glass screens manufactured for fitting in moto...
Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., Through Collector Kannauj and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC355
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner had challenged the recovery certificate issued against him on account of loan taken by him from the respondent Bank by means of Writ Petition No. 11539 of 1998 which was disposed of with certain directions for payment of amount in instalments by an order dated 21.4.1998. Special Appeal No. 399 of 1998 against the said order was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.5.1998. It appears that in none of the orders the cost of the petition or of the appeal was awarded. By an order dated 22.6.1998, the Bank had sent requisition for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7.600 being the cost incurred by the bank for defending the said proceedings as arrears of land revenue along with recovery proceeding. This order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition and has since been challenged in this writ petition.2. Mr. R. A. Verma holding brief for Shri Man Phool Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless the Court award cost, it is not o...
Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC508
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. Matsya Jeevi Sahkarl Samlli Ltd.. Bakia Pahalwan, pargana Bidhar, tehsil Alapur, district Ambedkar Nagar through its President has filed the present writ petition praying that the order dated 20.2.97 passed by Up Zila Adhikari. Alapur be quashed and a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the petitioner's society as the licence holder/lease holder to carry on the fishing in the tank in question be Issued.2. According to the impugned order, earlier the fishing rights were given to 58 fishermen, with effect from 5.7.83 to 4.7.93 for a period of ten years. After some time, a dispute arose between the licence/lease holders and the tank was divided into two parts and the contesting parties started fishing in the said tank. Out of those 58 persons only 22 lease holders deposited the licence fee and out of 36 who did not deposit the fee. 5 expressed their unwillingness to take the lease in future because they did not reside in the said ...
Munirul Haque Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC542
I.P. Vasishth, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the notices contained in Annexures-2 and 4 besides the order contained in Annexure-6 passed by respondent No. 3, the Regional Food Controller. Faizabad Region, Faizabad.2. The gist of the matter is that in the year 1975, the petitioner was posted as In-charge of F. C. 1. Godown at Barabanki and that since the Godown was in a dilapidated condition, therefore, he reported the matter to respondent No. 3 recommending the shifting of the food-grain stock to a safer place, andeven though the respondent No. 3 did not move into action, there was heavy rainfall, with the result that some of the stocks were damaged on being exposed to poor weather. The petitioner with the help of the then Senior Marketing Inspector Sri Ram Pal Singh on his own removed the stocks temporarily to a safer place as a make-shift arrangement and impressed upon respondent No. 3 to find out a permanent place for its storage, but no action was take...
Kamlesh Parihar and Another Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2019
Palok Basil and R.K. Mahajan, JJ. 1. The applicants, Kamlesh Parihar and Dr. J. S. Parashari, have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge. Pillbhit whereby he has allowed the application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and cancelled thefr bail, thus setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 28.1.1997 granting bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 381 of 1996. P. S. Kotwali, District Pilibhit under Sections 420. 467. 468. 471, 409 and 120B, I.P.C. registered against them alleging embezzlement of Rs. l,03.18,420.85p. It has been further directed that both the applicants should be taken into custody and if both or either of the applicants is not present in Court, his sureties will produce him or them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.4.1998. By an interim order dated 7.4.1998 passed by a learned single Judge when this revision was filed, the aforesaid direction of the Sessions Judge dated 31...
Hafiz ChiraguddIn and Others Vs. Vth Upper Munsif, Agra and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2179
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Rajeshji Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sushil Harkauli, learned counsel representing the contesting respondent No. 2.2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that orders dated 21.11.1983, 21.9.1984 and 11.1.1990, be quashed.3. The impugned orders dated 21.11.1983 and 11.1.1990 have been passed in Civil Suit No. 280 of 1982 between Hafiz Chiraguddin and others and Sri Inayat All. The order dated 21.9.1984 was passed in revision against the order dated 21.11.1983.4. The suit was instituted by the petitioners in representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'Code'), against the respondent No. 2 for permanent injunction restraining him from demolishing any grave or raising any construction in the property in dispute. The property in dispute, according to petitioners, was Kabristan.5. Before the trial court, a pl...
Dhani Ram Vs. Zila Adhikari, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2305
D. K. Seth, J.1. On account of suspension of the Pradhan with regard to financial and administrative powers, the District Magistrate by an order dated 13.7.1998 has constituted a committee for running financial and administrative powers. The petitioner who claims to be the Up-Pradhan, alleges that he has not been included in the said committee though under Section 12J, of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. in such circumstances, he is entitled to function in the absence of Pradhan.2. Mr. R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, therefore, the order dated 13.7.1998 should be quashed and the petitioner should be directed to carry on administrative and financial powers.3. Mr. V. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that provision of Section 12J could not be applicable when Pradhan is suspended in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 95 (g) of the Act by reason of the proviso appended thereto.4. I have heard both the l...
Harihar Bux Singh Vs. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Manpur, Hardoi and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC37
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, 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 certtorari quashing the order dated 23.7.90, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the amount misappropriated by him was directed to be recovered from him.3. Petitioner while working as Secretary of Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti, Manpur, block Bawan, district Hardoi misconducted himself, on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Firstly the preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which petitioner was found prima facie guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, vide letter No.345/Sahkari cadre dated 31.3.1990, the petitioner was communicated charge-sheet. He was required to file explanation within fifteen days, but no explanation was filed by ...
Lal Bahadur Jauhari Vs. Vith Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC471
J. C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel Sri S. H. Siddiqui and Sri M. K. Gupta counsel appearing for the contesting res pendents-land lords.2. This is tenant's writ petition. The dispute relates to a shop situate at Shri Ganj near City Post Office, Aligarh. In which the petitioner is undtsputedly a tenant for the last more than thirty years and according to him he is running a Tailoring business therein. Landlord Manohar Lal Jain filed application for the release of the said shop under Section 16 (!) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 thereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the same is bona fide required for himself and his grandson Sudhanshu Jain. It was stated therein that Sudhanshu Jain has become major and after completing his education was sitting idle and unemployed and he was to be set up in business so that he could be married and lead his own life independently. It was also stated that the landlord has no other vacant shop to settle his son therein. T...
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC500
O. P. Jain, J.1. The petitioner Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Tehrl, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the recovery certificates for the sum of Rs. 22,61,662 may be quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner Corporation is a joint venture of the Union of India and the State of U. P. and it is engaged in the implementation of building a gigantic Power Complex. The entire assets and land belonging to Tehri Dam Project were transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1st of June. 1989 and the name of the Corporation has been mutated in the Revenue Records. For the construction of the Dam, the Corporation shifts ordinary earth in its natural form. Respondent No. 2 (Ziladhikari, Tehri Garhwal) demanded royalty on the earth shifted by the Corporation on the Dam site. According to the Corporation, no royalty was payable for this shifting of the earth and the Corporation is no...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »