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.
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1694
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. These two petitions involved the same question of facts and law, therefore, there are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of both cases are that the opposite party No. 2 filed two separate complaints against the petitioners. In those complaints the petitioners moved applications to release them on bail under Section 88, Cr.P.C. without their appearance in Court on the ground that the petitioners are ill. The trial Court has rejected both the applications on the ground that unless the petitioners appear in the Court no order for bail could be passed. Aggrieved by that order the present petitions have been filed with the request that the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications be quashed and the Magistrate be directed to decide the petitioners applications without enforcing the personal presence of the petitioners and treat their presence through counsel.3. I have heard Sri H.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and learn...
Ganga Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1695
J.C. Gupta, J.1. These two connected appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21-7-80 passed by the then 9th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly convicting the appellants and sentencing each of them to one year R.I. under Section 147, IPC, one year R.I. under Section 328 read with Section 149, IPC, two years R.I. under Section 325 read with Section 149, IPC and imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the first informant Nathoo P.W. 1 and accused Babu Ram are neighbours in village Arrupura. On 2-5-78 when Nathoo got up in the morning at about sunrise and went to give fodder to his cattle, he noticed smoke emanating from his Chhapper. With the help of villagers fire was extinguished. However, it was found that much of the fodder stored in the Chhapper had been reduced to ashes. He suspected the hands of accused Babu Ram in this mischief. At about ...
Salora International Ltd. Vs. Commr. (A) Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT299(All)
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. In all the three petitions, identical question of facts and law are involved, therefore, all the three Writ petitions are being decided by common judgment.2. The petitioners are engaged in manufacturer of Television and Audio system falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos. 8527 and 8528 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are duly registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing facility of Modvat credit on the inputs received and used by them in the manufacture of Television and Audio system. They were served with show cause notices dated 1-12-1995 and 29-2-1996 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida and by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, in which it was stated that they had wrongly availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,07,98,261/- and Rs. 9,94,744.20 paise respectively. By the said notices they were required to show cause why the Modvat credit already availed by them be not reversed.3. In the first notice the reasons for reversal ...
Pappu Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC1
N.K. Mitra, C.J.1. The special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1999 by which the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1999 instituted against cancellalion of his fair price shop holding that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the Full Bench decision of the Court in U. P. Sasta Galla Vikreta Panshad v. State of U. P. and others.2. The first question that needs to be considered and decided pertains to maintainability of the writ petition which was instituted by the appellant challenging the order of cancellation of fair price shop allotted to him. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision referred to above. The Full Bench decision, reliance on which has been placed by the learned single Judge, has maintained that in the matter of non-statutory contracts, the rights of the parties thereto are g...
Abb Abl Limited and Others Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC354; (2000)1UPLBEC334
G.P. Mathur and Yatindra Singh, JJ.1.This is a writ petition for a direction to the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) to rescind the decision taken by it in awarding the contract of Steam Generator Package for Talcher Super Thermal Power Project to Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) and to consider the case of M/s. Combustion Engineering Inc., (CE inc.) with ABB ABL Limited as the Indian assignee for granting of the said contract.2. NTPC floated a global tender on 15th of December. 1997 for thesupply and installation of (i) Steam Generator (SG) Package and (ii) Steam Turbine Generator (STG) Package as per the brief particulars specified in the bidding documents. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the supply and installation of Steam Generator (SG) Package only. There were three bidders and the bids were opened by NTPC on 2nd of December, 1998. Subsequently all bidders were given an opportunity to rectify the inconsistencies and were asked to submit fresh b...
Basant Lal Vs. District Pancyayat Raj Officer and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1436
R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. In both these writ petitions common questions of law and fact are Involved. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By means of W.P. No. 538 (MS) of 1998 filed 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 23.2.1998 whereby petitioner, who was holding the office of Pradhan of village Eksana alias Karkashan, district Rae Bareli, was informed that he has been removed from the aforesaid office and was directed to hand over charge of the said office to Up Pradhan of the village within 3 days of the receipt of the said order. Prayer for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to compel the petitioner to hand over charge of the office of the Pradhan to Up Pradhan, has also been made.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, are that a notice d...
Virendra Bahadur Singh Vs. District Judge, Faizabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3571
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. 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 7.9.91 passed by District Judge, Fatzabad dismissing the petitioner from the post of peon of Civil Court, Faizabad.2. Relevant facts of the case as unfolded from the material on record, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in the Judgeship of Faizabad on 13.11.1987. It was on 1.6.89 Km. Sudha Singh, Vlth Addl. Munsif Magistrate. Faizabad made a complaint to the District Judge that the petitioner firstly approached her not to grant bail to the accused persons but when he failed in his attempt, he has interpolated release order issued, in Case Crime No. 33 of 1989. He added figure '1' in crime number and Interpolated Crime No. 93 of 1989 as Crime No. 193 of 1989, so that the accused who have allegedly assaulted father-in-law of his real brother Sri Ram Bah...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, Allahabad Vs. Assistant Labour Commision ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR561]; (2000)ILLJ1221All
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. All theaforesaid matters were heard together as a common point of law stood Involved in all these cases. The present order, accordingly, would cover all the aforesaid petitions.2. The petitioners run an Industry as a unit of National Textile Corporation (in short, the NTC) at Naini, Allahabad. It is the case of the petitioner that the NTC is an undertaking of the Government of India under the provisions of the Industrial Development Regulation Act and the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. 1986. The unit became sick and had submitted a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, the SICA, 1985), before the Board for thealso similar objections, as stated above, were raised.8. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners made a prayer for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 14.6.1999 and 15.6.1999 and for a writ in the nature of mandamus direct...
Sarada Steels Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000LC548(Allahabad); 2000(117)ELT3(All)
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 (2...
Pravesh Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC498; 2000LC547(Allahabad); 2000(117)ELT294(All)
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 also of the attempt of the respondents to force the petitioner to pay excise duty which is not due.2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tej Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. M.S. ingots/runner riser. Section 3A of the Central Excise Act empowers the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of notified goods. The Commissioner determined the annual capacity of production of the petitioner's unit. This was done under Section 3A(4) of the Act by order dated 30th September, 1997 fixing the annual production capacity at 35361.920 MT and the duty payable pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »