Allahabad Court February 1999 Judgments

Gulzari and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2513

K.D. Siiahi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Gulzari, Devi, both sons of Shhul, Vijay Bahadur alias Vijayee son of Ram Das, Prabhu son of Bhagwandeen, Guru alias Gaya Pd. alias Guru Prasad, Bawan alias Raj Bahadur and Babu Singh, all residents of village Nakatoo Mazra Chatta ka Purwa, P.S. Sachendi, district Kanpur against the judgment and order dated 26-4-1980 passed by Sri D.K. Trivedi, the then VIIth Addi. Sessions Judge, Kanpui, in Sessions Trial No. 65-M of 1979 convicting and sentencing them for various punishments including life imprisonment under Sections 148, 323 read with Sections 149. IPC and 302 read with Section 149. IPC for having caused the murders of Karan Singh and Dharmpal and also injuries to Amar Singh, Prakash and Ram Autar on 23rd Oct. 1977 at 8 a.m. in village Chhattapurwa Hamlet of Kaktoo, police station Sachendi, district Kanpur.2. In brief the facts of the case are:-- there was enmity between both the parties. On 30-10-1977 at about 8 a.m. the party of the...

Chandresh Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2759

D.S. Sinha and D.K. Seth, JJ.1. Besides deciding instant petition, challenging the order of preventive detention of the petitioner, passed under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter called the 'Act,' on merits, the principal agenda of this Full Bench is to answer the following question posed by a Division Bench--Whether the order of preventive detention can at all be challenged on the ground of parity, the origin of which has been traced in Article 14 of the Constitution and if it can be claimed, what should be its extent and basis2. On merits, the petition has already been allowed with the direction to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case, vide order of the Court dated 4th December, 1998. The said order did not give reasons in its support on that day. According to the order, the reasons were to be given later on. The reasons are now given in the judgment of Hon'ble R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Trius, it is not necessa...

Mahboob Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2782

R.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Petitioner Mahboob has filed this writ petition for grant of writ of habeas corpus directing respondents to release him from detention and to quash the order of detention dated 15-6-1998,Annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Along with the order of detention petitioner was also served the grounds of detention on which the petitioner has been detained under the Act. The grounds are as under :1. That on 17-2-1996, at 5.00 p.m., Shri Suresh, Inspector in-charge of police station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi who is member of operation cell, Lodhi Colony, with the help of other members, arrested Kris Teef Jelvazor, a citizen of Switzerland, and Mohd. Hassan Poddar alias Azis Batloni alias Sheikh Majeed alias Hassan Aroli, son of Mohd. Husain, resident of Lahore (Pakistan) from Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and recovered from their possession 361 pistols of differen...

Alchochem Organics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (A) C. Ex.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(118)ELT22(All)

P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri M. Manglik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioner availed Modvat credit in view of the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The said credit was however disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise) after serving notice upon the petitioner and hearing him. An appeal was preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in which an application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of one-third of the disputed amount at the time of filing of the appeal was moved. The appellate authority allowed waiver of condition of pre-deposit of one-third of the disputed amount of the extent of 50% only.3. It is this order which is being challenged in this writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a number of documents were produced before the appellate authority showing hardship...

Sunil Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1160; 1999CriLJ2340

R.R.K. Truvedi, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner and for quashing of theorder dated 12.6.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate. Gorakhpur. under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which he has been detained.2. Along with the order of detention, petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention on the basis of which respondent No. 2 formed his subjective satisfaction. In the grounds, it is stated that on 24.11.1997. near the Char Phatak. at a little distance from the railway track, at about 4.30 p.m. when the police van No. U. P. 53/F-3210 was escorting the under-trials for admission in the Jail, after they had been produced in Court, it was attacked by hand-grenades. The culprits were shouting that Rakesh and Brahma are in the van. At the site of the scene near the road Palri, a Tata Mobile...

Har Pal Singh Vs. Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Rampur and ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1172

O.P. Garg, J.1. Heard Sri AmarNath Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2. Smt. Nanhi had filed a petition No. 33 of 1996 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage against the present petitioner. During the pendency of the said Matrimonial petition, respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming pendente life alimony and litigation expenses. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1997. Learned trial court, by the impugned order dated 13.1.1999, has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 600 In total as pendente lite alimony (Rs. 400 for the maintenance of Smt. Nanhi, wife and Rs. 200 for the maintenance of the daughter). This order has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that his marriage was never solemnized with the respondent No. 2 and. therefore, question of payment of any pendente lite and litigation exp...

Daya Shanker and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the alleged wrong fixation of pay of the applicants on their re-employment. In the O.A., the applicants sought for a number of reliefs as detailed in paras 8(A) to 8(F) of the O.A.During hearing, applicants' counsel stated that he was pressing for relief under para 8(A) only, which is reproduced below: "Respondent No. 3 may be directed to fix the pay of the applicants in accordance with the provisions of Order 4 and5 of the C.C.S. (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 and the other extant provisions referred to in para 4 and allow annual increments after fixing the pay on the date of re-employment." 2. The applicants in the O.A. stated that having retired from Army before completion of 65 years of age, they were called for test and interview for re-employment by the respondent No. 3 on 8.3.1984 and even though they were selected on 1.4.1984, appointments were made on 23.5.19...

Vishnu Deo Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1145

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.10.1982 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation.2. The brief facts for the purposes of the present petition as stated in the petition are that the disputed plot Nos. 275, 280, 427 and 561 of village Plparasi, Paragna Sindhawa Jobana, Tehsil Padrauna. District Deorla were recorded in the basic year khataimf in the name of the respondents as Bhumidhars. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9, U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming himself to be the Bhumidhar of the land in disputeon the ground that it was bhumidhari land and the petitioner Is in possession over the same but the names of the respondents were wrongly recorded over the disputed land. The respondents have no concern. It is stated that the respondents appeared before the Consolidation Officer and filed Vakalatnama of one Sri Virendra Prasad Srivastava, A...

Dr. Hari Prasad Adhikari Vs. Chancellor, Sampuranand Sanskrit Universi ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1181; (1999)2UPLBEC1629

M. Katju and Kamal Kishore, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the resolution of the executive council of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University dated 27.11.1994 and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Tulnatmaka Dharma Darshan in Sampurnanand San'skrit University, Varanasi.3. The petitioner is a citizen of Bhutan. A vacancy on the post of lecturer in Tulnatmaka Dharma Darshan arose and was advertised vide Annexure-1 to the petition and the petitioner applied against the same. The petitioner was selected on 27.10.1991 and joined on 2.11.1991.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 31 (2)(a) of U. P. State Universities Act which states that the appointment of a teacher, in the first instance, shall be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year. In our opinion, this provision means that the maximum period of proba...

Ram Roop Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1771

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 12.11.1998 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation.2. At the time of admission. Sri M.A. Khan, Advocate has appeared to oppose the stay and admission both. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that plot No. 1456 of village Bogana, Pargana Pachotar. District Ghazipur, was the subject-matter of the consolidation proceeding. It is stated by the petitioner that there are 8 divisions of the aforesaid plot. It appears that an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the respondents before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. Ghazipur, seeking permission to construct a house. On this application, report was called for by the S.O.C. from the Consolida...