Allahabad Court November 1999 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.
J.S. Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000LC545(Allahabad); 2000(117)ELT299(All)
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved of the omission of respondent No. 1 to redetermine the actual production of excisable goods in petitioner's factory in terms of Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the insistence of the respondents for payment of duty in terms of earlier determination, which does not legally survive.2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of the excisable goods i.e., M.S. Ingots/Runner Riser. Section 3A of the Act conferred power on the Central Government to determine the excise duty on the basis of the capacity of the production in respect of such goods. Sub-section (2) of Section 3A, authorises the Commissioner to determine the actual capacity of production and the duty payable. In terms of Section 3A(2) the Commissioner fixed the annual production capacity at ...
Sarada Steels Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(69)ECC58
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is aggrieved by the omission of the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and demand of duty without such disposal. 2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is running a mill manufacturing hot re-rolled non-alloy steel and produces goods that are subject to excise duty. Section 3A of the Act empowers the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production and such capacity was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Act. The petitioner has moved an application under Sub-section (4) of Section 3A claiming that the actual production in its factory is lower than the production determined under Sub-section...
Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Engineer-in-chief (Mechanical), Lucknow and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC7; [2000(85)FLR919]; (2000)1UPLBEC515
S.R. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1999 thereby dismissing the appellant's writ petition which he had instituted challenging the order dated 28.8.1999 whereby the appellant, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department. Government of Uttar Pradesh, presently posted in Lift Irrigation Department, Kanpur, has been placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry in respect of his act or omission amounting to misconduct of the year 1994 while he was posted in Laghu Dal Nahar Khand, Allahabad.2. We have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and standing counsel representing the respondents and perused the judgment and order under challenge.3. It appears that the irregularity for which the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant is saidto be in contemplation pertains to supply of teak wood which on examination by the Forest Research Institute, a Government of India concern, was ...
Sharmishtha Srivastava Vs. Vice-chancellor, Dean Dayal Upadhayaya Univ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC56; (2000)1UPLBEC491
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was a regular student of B. A. from Buddhya Vldyapeeth Degree College, Naugarh, Siddhartha Nagar which was affiliated to Gorakhpur University. She appeared in B. A. Part HI examination of 1997-98. When the result was declared, she was unsuccessful. She received her marks-sheet on 4.9.1998. The petitioner then came to know that she was marked absent in English third paper. She immediately moved an application on 4.9.1998 to the Registrar of the university informing him that the marks sheet issued to her was incorrect and she had appeared in all the three papers of English subject and requested for a correct copy of the marks-sheet. On 16.9.1998 she received a letter from the principal of the institution directing her to return the Incorrect marks-sheet so that the same may be cancelled and a fresh marks-sheet be issued to her. On 16.9.98 the Principal cancelled the marks-sheet issued on 4.9.1998. The Gorakhpur University on 8.11.1998 issued the correct m...
Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Mainpuri and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC432; [2000(86)FLR554]; (2000)IILLJ544All; (2000)1UPLBEC129
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner has prayed for regularisation of his service as Stenographer. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on daily wage basts In March, 1981, and he has been in continuous service since then, i.e., for more than 18 years.3. In our opinion, the State Government cannot act arbitrarily in the matters relating to temporary or daily wage employees. No doubt there is a principle in service law that a temporary employee has no right to the post, but this principle has to be considered along with the other legal principle that the State cannot act arbitrarily. In the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597, it has been held by a 7-Judge Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court that the State Government cannot act arbitrarily as arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, to keep a person on ...
Neeraj JaIn and Others Vs. Mohd. Salim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC554; (2000)1UPLBEC78
Ravi S. Dhavan and Aloke Chakrabarti, JJ.1. The Court has heard counsel for the contemners at length. Four arguments were advanced.(a) That the contemptproceedings had not beenvalldly initiated for judgmentafter one year from the actioncomplained of.(b) the proceedings for contempt suffer from an infirmity that the Cantonment Board was an essential party and, thus, the proceedings must fail by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.(c) the extension of an injunction order on which there was an allegation that there was a breach of its conditions, the allegations of violation do not hold, and(d) the appellants were not aware of the injunction order of the Court as the lawyer had not Intimated them of any knowledge of an extension of an injunction.2. All these are technical pleas. On behalf of the contemners. no precise explanation was coming as towhy the contempt proceedings must fail on the point of limitation. Firstly, it was attempted to be explai...
A.K. Enterprises, Agra Vs. Sterling Machine Tolls and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC897
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It has been provided that no suit for infringement of a registered trade mark, or relating to any right in a registered trade mark or for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.2. In this revision, a short question is involved as to whether the Court of Additional District Judge can try and decide the suit instituted in the Court of District Judge and lateron transferred to it for trial and decision and whether the Court of Additional District Judge is an inferior Court to a District Court. The 'District Court' has been defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. According to which, 'District Court' has the mea...
Deepika @ Baby Vs. Naresh Chandra Sighania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC891
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Biharl, JJ.1. As both these appeals involved common questions of law and facts and which were placed and heard together, hence are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both these appeals have been filed by the wife, against the common judgment and decree dated 10.3.1998 passed by the learned Family Judge, Meerut decreeing Suit No. 808 of 1993 filed by the respondent husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissing Suit No. 530 of 1993 filed by the wife under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights.3. Suit No. 808 of 1993 filed by the respondent husband was transferred vide order dated 17.10.1995 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 155 of 1995, to the Family Court at Meerut to be tried and heard along with suit No. 530 of 1993, Smt. Deepika v. Naresh Chand Singhania, and the Family Court was directed to dispose of the proceedings expeditlously preferably within a period of four...
Lalit Mohan Upadhyay Vs. Principal, Kumaon Engineering College, Dwarha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC917; (2000)1UPLBEC130
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary,JJ. 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner was lecturer in Mathematics in Kumaon Engineering College. Dwarhat, District Almora- He submitted his resignation dated 6.9.1993 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, but he has alleged In paragraph 17 of the writ petition that he withdrew that resignation byRegistered letter dated 10.9.1993 Annexure-9 to the writ petition. it has been further alleged in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that the resignation was accepted on 17.1.1994. The allegation in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation letter dated 6.9.1993 by his subsequent letter dated 10.9.1993 is not denied. in paragraph 16 to the counter-affidavit, all that is stated is that paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition are matters of record and hence need no reply. Thus the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR38(All); [2001]117TAXMAN709(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-Delhi, in compliance with this court's direction dated July 17, 1980, under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in Wealth-tax Applications Nos. 47, 46 and 48 of 1980 has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the asses-see's share in the additions made in the case of the firm in which he was a partner was not includible in his wealth ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of his share in Saraswati Ware Housing Corporation ?' 2. The aforesaid questions arise out of a consolidated order dated March 7, 1979, passed by the Tribunal in Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 1056, 1057 and1058 (Delhi of 1976...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »