Allahabad Court March 1999 Judgments

Muzammil Jamal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ3364

ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. List has been revised. None appears for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. is present in person. Record has been gone into with the help of the learned A.G.A.2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18-3-1985 available on the order sheet of the S.T. No. 23 of 1985 State v. Nawab Dulha, under Sections 307, 326, 323, I.P.C. P.S. Kaimganj District Farrukhabad pending at that time before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. This order did not disclose that the Sessions Judge had applied his mind to the matter before him as required under Sections 227 and 228, Cr. P.C. Sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. taken together indicate that the Sessions Judge shall consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, if he considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reas...

Modi Tyre Factory, Modinagar, Ghaziabad Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1559A; (1999)2UPLBEC1593

Ravi S. Dhavan and A.K. Yog, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed by Messrs. Modi Tyre Factory. Modinagar. The orders sought to be impugned are dated July 19, 1997. Annexure-8 to the petition, warrant of demand, issued under Section 168 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Annexure-10 to the writ petition and the citation, dated January 25. 1999, for recovering the amount of Rs. 14 lacs from the petitioner. Annexure-10 to the writ petition.2. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition.3. An assessment of thepremises occupied by the petitionerhad been made. This related toassessment for the year 1996 to 2001.This is the quinquennial assessmentunder Section 143 (1) of the Act.insofar as the warrant of demand andthe citation is concerned, this hasbeen issued as the petitioner has notsatisfied the ratable taxes as wereassessed. The petitioner had filed anappeal under Section 160 of the Act.But, the condition precedent, for thefil...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2000]241ITR131(All); [2001]117TAXMAN702(All)

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in holding that the interest paid under Section 17(3) of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958, was not penal in nature for infringement of law and, therefore, it was allowable as deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The said question is stated to arise from the Tribunal's order dated January 9, 1981, in I. T. A. No. 866 (All) of 1980 for the assessment year 1978-79.3. The list has been revised. None appears for the assessee-respondent.4. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax, and perused the Tribunal's order and annexures thereof.5. The assessee-respondent runs a sugar factory. For manufacture of sugar, it purchases sugarcane ...

Charan Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ3379

ORDERB.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 3-7-1985 passed by Shri S.C. Srivastava, the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1984, Charan v. State U.P. and another, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the J.M. Special Court, Economic Offences, Jhansi Sri A.K. Srivastava in Criminal Case No. 669 of 1984, State v. Charan under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, PS. Raksa, District Jhansi, whereby, the accused-revisionist has been convicted of the offence under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months.2. The prosecution case was that the accused-revisionist was carrying cows milk for sale. The food inspector took sample from him and observing necessary formalities sent the sample to the p...

Ram Sagar and ors. 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 non-consideration of the applicants' recruitment against Group 'D' vacancy even though their counter parts-out of the same 'common list--being considered by the respondents. The applicants sought the following reliefs: (i) to issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners against the existing vacancies of the Chowkidars in the Grade of Rs. 750-940 in Group 'D' alongwith their other counterparts for permanent absorption. (ii) To issue any other order, writ or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit as per facts and circumstances of the case.2. The facts as stated in the application are that the applicants were appointed as Chowkidars at Babina under Garrison Engineer during the year 1971 at the time of Indo-Pak War for guarding the buildings as the troops were in the border. They claim that they had worked for m...

K.K. Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the non-empanelment of the applicant to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade Rs. 1400-2300 by respondents. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs through this OA: (i) The select list consisting of two guards for promotion as Traffic Inspector Grade Rs. 1400-2300 be quashed being contrary to the provisions of the notification. (ii) The applicant's performance in the Departmental Examination for direct recruitment to the post of Traffic Inspector may be summoned and comparatively examined so as to ensure the applicant's eligibility and empanelment for promotion. (iii) The respondents no. 2 and 3 be directed to rescind and revise the orders passed against the policy decision including two guards for promotion against the prorata eligibility of only one guard and the two posts be allowed to ASMs category. (iv) The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be considered illegally pemanelled for prom...

Rajbir and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and Oth ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1359

M.L. Singhal, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1999, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut, respondent No. 1, and the judgment and order dated 26th July, 1997, rendered by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Meerut respondent No. 2, (Annexures-'5' and '4' respectively to the writ petition).3. One Smt. Murti Devi was the owner of the disputed Chak No. 821, according to the petitioners she executed a Will in their favour on 10th July, 1987, according to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Virendra Singh and Mahendra Singh she had executed a Registered Will in theirfavour on 9th July, 1987, one day prior to the alleged Will in favour of the petit...

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Deputy Director, Government Photo Litho Press, Roorke ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1362; [1999(82)FLR146]

D.K. Seth, J. 1. A select list was prepared on 24.1.1989 against four posts of machine assistant. Vacancy against three posts was already in existence. The fourth vacancy was anticipated on account of imminent promotion of one of the machine assistants to the post of rotary machine operator. Machine Assistant Nasir Ahmad was promoted to the post of rotary machine operator by an order dated 29.8.1989. But he Joined the said post on 3.11.1989. It is on this post the petitioner was to be accommodated having been selected at the fourth place of the select list. But by reason of a ban imposed on 26.2.1989, the petitioner was informed through letter dated 21.12.1989 being Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit, that he could not be appointed because of the ban imposed on direct recruitment, but he will be given appointment as soon the ban is lifted. The ban was admittedly lifted in 1993. But no appointment was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had came up with this writ pe...

Abdul Rahman Vs. Ist Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad an ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1387

Yatindra Singh, J. 1. This is the tenant's writ petition for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Moradabad (Prescribed Authority for short) refusing to consolidate the Case No. 43 of 1996 and P.A. Case No. 8 of 1998 pending under Section 21, of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short).2. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute. The P. A. Case No. 43 of 1996 was filed by one Indkhab Alam claiming himself to be the landlord of the premises. Subsequently his uncle Mohd. Khalid filed another case, namely. P.A. Case No. 8 of 1998, against the petitioner for the same premises claiming himself to be the landlord. Petitioner filed an application dated 5.11.1998' under Rule 22 (e) for consolidation of these two cases. This application has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. He says application by different landlords against same tenant cannot be consolidated unde...

Saraswati Prasad and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1448; (1999)2UPLBEC1234

D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners allege to have been appointed as Assistant Vasti Baqi Navis and contend that they have not been regularised. By means of a representation contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioners claim that they should be confirmed in the post of clerk in the Collectorate against the existing vacancies in the post of clerk. By an order dated 3rd January, 1994, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the prayer was rejected on the ground that it was without any substance. Mr. Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been given appointment in some other posts. Therefore, the writ petition as regards petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 has become infructuous. Accordingly, on the basis of his such statement, which is supported by Annexure R.A.-8 to the writ petition, this writ petition as against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed as infructuous.2. Mr. Dwiv...