Allahabad Court February 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.
Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC976; (1999)3UPLBEC2263
M. Katju and Kamal Kishore,JJ.1. This petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge by his order dated 19.12.1997. The point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or a temporary appointment. According to the learned single Judge, this Court had earlier held that an appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment vide Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D. I. O. S., 1993 ESC 21 ; Gulab Yadau u. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (2) VPLBEC 995 and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D. I. O. S. and others, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 427. The learned single Judge who passed the referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed with the abovementioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger Bench.2. In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment Is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it wil...
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1170; 1999LC840(Allahabad)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. On 9.4.1997, an ex parts order was passed by this Court on merits after hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents' counsel was absent. Thereafter an application for recall of the said order was moved. This Court on 31.7.1998 allowed the recall of the judgment and order dated 9.4.1997. The matter is heard today when both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents have appeared. The only contention of the petitioner's counsel before this Court is that notice issued on 1.5.1992 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) be quashed and set aside inasmuch as under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, no notice for refund of interest can be issued. The respondents' counsel submitted that the refund made under the orders of the Superintendent of Central Excise was wrongful and illegal and without any authority on the part of the Superintendent of Central Excise to pass such an order of refund. The entire refund was made illegally...
Rajendra Nath Tripathi and Another Vs. Jagdish Dutt Gupta and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1366
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 allowing the revision and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that defendant No. 1 Ram Adhar Tewari was a tenant and he had sub-let the disputed accommodation to Rajendra Nath Tiwari and Jogendra Nath Tewari, defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants also unauthorisedly constructed Chabutra and raised the wall. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement. He denied that he had sub-let the accommodation in question and there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. The Judge, Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on 7.9.1990 on the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were nephews of defendant No. 1 and as they were living with him as re...
Pramod Tiwari Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1434A; (1999)2UPLBEC1004
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. The petitioner Sri Pramod Tiwari, had a licence for Tehbazari on the side-walk of Choori Market, Shivala Road. Kanpur Nagar. He says that he had been allotted site Chak No. 37 and was carrying on a petty shop in the name of Sadhana Chappals since 1990.2. It is on record that there wasan anti-encroachment drive forremoval of unauthorisedconstructions and in this anti-encroachment drive when the roadwas cleared, the petitioner's shop wasalso damaged and demolished. Thepetitioner contends that he received alicence again to conduct business onthe roads, but he is not beingpermitted to open the shop. Thepetitioner accepts that the licence isvalid till 31st March. 1999. Thus, thepetitioner says that a writ be issuedto the respondents that the petitionerbe given an alternate site on the sidewalk of the same road.3. The prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted nor can a writ be issued to the respondents that the petitioner should occupy the sidewalk of a ...
Fakire Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC926; (1999)3UPLBEC2282
M. Katju and Kamal Kishore,JJ.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. We have also heard Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned senior Advocate, and Sri A. Kumarand Sri S. A. Jilani, advocates as Amicus Curiae. We propose to lay down certain guidelines regarding the question as to when a petition regarding service matters should be directly entertained by this Court. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for certain increments. The petitioner has prayed for grant of first Increment in category 'A' post of Deputy Director of Panchayat taking into account 7 years service in 'Kha' category post of District Panchayat Officer. The petitioner is on the post of Deputy Director. Panchayat, U. P. and hence he is a government servant. It is settled law that if there is an alternative remedy, the petitioner should ordinarily avail of that remedy before coming to this Court. In the present case, there is an alternative remedy of approaching the U. ...
Shiv Murti Sharma and Another Vs. Vith Additional District Judge, Kanp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC997
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writpetition is directed against the orderof the appellate authority dated1.12.1998 allowing the appeal andreleasing the disputedaccommodation in favour of thelandlord-respondent No. 3 underSection 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13of 1972 (in short the Act).2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 purchased a portion of House No. 106/380B. Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on 26.8.1985 of which the petitioners are tenants of a portion on the ground floor. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for release on 2.9.1993 alleging that his family consists of himself, his wife, three sons and one daughter. He is residing on the first floor and second floor. On the first floor, he has got one room and on second floor, he has got one room but on the ground floor his son has a shop carrying on business. The accommodation for him for residential purpose is insufficient. It was further stated that petitioner No. 1 was residing in Rae Bareilly as he was working as a teacher ...
Bhola Nath (Decd) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1023
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 29th August, 1973 (incorrectly typed as 19.8.1973) 20th October. 1972 and 30th November, 1970, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer respectively.2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition for the purpose of the present case are that the disputed plots pertaining to Khata No. 105 of village Kusumhi. Tehsll Bansi, district Basti was recorded in the basic yearkhatoni in the name of the petitioner as sirdar. Respondent No. 4, namely, Mahant Harihar Das filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming plot in dispute on the allegations that they were his khudkast plots before the date of vesting and after the date of vesting, he is in possession over the same as bhumidhar. The claim of the respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the...
Sri Onkar Nath Mahendra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(All)188; [1999]237ITR792(All)
1. The present writ petition raises an interesting question. The petitioner was a minor at the relevant time and was being assessed to income-tax for his share in the partnership firm. His father was also a partner in the said firm. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, by its Section 13 of the Amending Act made effective from April 1, 1976, provisions of Section 64(3) were inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said provision provided that if a minor is admitted to the benefits of partnership, income falling to his share will be liable to be assessed in the hands of either parent whoever has the higher income. Though not obliged after the amendment of Section 64(3) of the Act, the petitioner filed his return of income and showed his share income from Bhagat Ram Jai Narayan as income taxable in the hands of the minor and it was shown in paragraph 3 of the return. On the basis of the said return of income, the assessment was made by the assessing authority on January 27, 1979, ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Waqf Mirza Khairati Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR614(All)
1. Four questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court. The questions referred are as follows :'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 property was held by the mutawalli under trust or other legal obligation for a public purpose of charitable or religious nature ? 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 public are interested in a substantial portion of the income of waqf property and also in the corpus ? 3. 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 was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisi...
Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1414
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 (incorrectly typed as petitioner No. 2) to register the society as Police Parivarik Kalyan Sansthan.2. The brief facts for the purpose of present writ petition as stated in the petition are that the petitioner applied to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. for registration of a society, known as All India Police Family Welfare Organization under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It appears that the Registrar referred the matter to the Director-General of Police to elicit his opinion but no reply was received from the Director-General of Police, then reminders were sent to the Director-General of Police, by the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act. The matter was being delayed, hence Writ Petition No. 5350 of 1993 was filed by one Rajendra Singh Yadav in the High Court for a direction...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »