Allahabad Court April 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.
Sant Kumar and Others Vs. Collector, Saharanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1664
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 6 are residents of village Asadpur, district Saharanpur 2. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 to stop any construction of a new Masjid in place of the room in question and also to stop use of loudspeaker.3. We have already held in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43403 of 1998, Mohd. Sharif Saifi v. State of U. P, and others, decided on 28.1.1999, that it is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to construct any house of worship whether it is a mosque, church, temple etc, on his own land or any one else's land with the consent of that person. Hence there can be no objection regarding construction of the Mosque and we direct that no one will interfere in the construction of the mosque.4. We have also issued a humble appeal in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14168 of 1999, Chhidda Khan v. Stat...
Subhas Ganguly Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Agra and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1903; [1999(82)FLR562]; (1999)3UPLBEC1950
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of Mercury Travels (India) Limited which is a registered company under the Companies Act. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it has been contended that since the said company is a tour operator and agents for all the principal Airlines, as such it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Affiliation as tour operator and agents for Airlines does not confer any characteristic onthe company to the extent of its being instrumentality and agency of the State. Admittedly, no ingredients as specified fn the decision in the case of Roman Daya Ram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628, has been shown to have been satisfied from the pleadings made out in the writ petition in order to bring the respondent No. 2 within the scope and ambit of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.2. Mr. V. N. Agarwal. learned counsel for the petitioner had contended ...
Sanjay Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(All)195; [2000]244ITR58(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that it would not be correct to interpret the word 'forward' in the same manner as the words 'issue' or 'serve' and, therefore, the assessment order dated August 24, 1977, was within the period of limitation ?' 2. The said question of law, arises out of the order dated March 31, 1981, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, passed in Income-tax Appeal No. 780 (Alld.) of 1980 relating to the assessment year 1972-73.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee-applicant is a firm. The limitation for completing the assessment of the assessment year 1972-73, in the normal course, expired on March 31, 1975, in accordance with the provisions of Section 153 of th...
Vishwa Ingots (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999LC838(Allahabad); 1999(113)ELT28(All)
M.G. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are appellants before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi challenge an order dated 26th June, 1998 passed by the Tribunal in exercises of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. No counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed and the writ petition has been finally heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage.3. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I has, by an order dated 12th November, 1997, levied excise duty in the sum of Rs. 30,51,033/- and has levied a penalty in the same sum on the petitioner M/s. Vishwa Ingots (Pvt.) Ltd. In addition personal penalty has also been levied on certain officials of the Company and the owner of the truck. The present petitioners M/s. Vis...
Smt. Shobha Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1634
B. K. Roy and O. Bhatt. JJ.1. Whether for the non-payment of the Bill of a closed connection telephone of a Public Limited Company, the telephone of the wife of the Managing Director of that Company, which is under liquidation, can be disconnected by the Telecom Authority by invoking Rule 433 of the Indian Telegraph Rules?, is the short question for our adjudication in this writ petition.2. Firstly the prayer for the petitioner. Her prayer is to quash the order dated 26.12.1990 and the direction as contained in the letter dated Agra 1.6.1991 addressed to the petitioner of the Account Officer (T. R.) Agra Telephones, Agra (respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexures-5 and 11 respectively.2A. The relevant part of the order, as contained in Annexure-5, reads thus-'Sub--Disconnection of Phone No. 61743Kindly disconnect Phone No. 61743 in lieu of 0/- dues of Closed connection No. 73579.'2B. The substance of the communication made vide the letter as contained in Annexure-11 is that she is re...
Chhidda Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1558A
M. Katju, J.1. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 42403 of 1998, Mohd. V. Sharif Saifi v. State of U. P. and others. We issue the same directions in this case also.2. However, we wish to issue a humble appeal to the general public to refrain from utilizing loudspeakers, whether it is for Akhand Ramayan. Azan, Kirtan, quawwali or public programmes, functions, marriages, or for any such purposes because this is causing a great deal of inconvenience and harassment to the general public, particularly to persons who may be having heart problems and want to get sound rest, students who wish to study, and others who do not wish to be disturbed.3. In our opinion, no doubt everyone has a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution topractice his religion freely, but his right should not be exercised in a manner which causes harassment or inconvenience to others. Hence we are issuing this humble appeal to...
Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs. Allahabad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1816; (1999)2UPLBEC1485
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 19th July, 1996. A charge-sheet was issued on 19th May. 1997. Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Regulation 85 (x) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulation, 1975 contends that ordinarily an employee cannot be kept under suspension for more than 6 months but in this case, the petitioner has been kept under suspension for about 4 years. Though a charge-sheet has been issued but the enquiry has not been concluded.2. Mr. Anil Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that according to him, case is pending as against the petitioner. Regulation 85 (x) of the said Act will not apply in cases where the suspension has been made on criminal charges on the direction of the Court. Mr. Tewari has relied on the said provision in order to resist the contention of K. K. Singh.3. Mr. Slngh had also relied on a decision in the case of Mahendra Kumar Pandey v. ...
Vijai Rathore Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1818; [2000(84)FLR4]
D.K. Seth, J 1. Shri M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out from the affidavit as well as from the documents annexed as annexures that the petitioner was appointed as paid apprentice by virtue of an order dated 6.1.1990 (Annexure-I). It had come to an end on 22.2.1990 by virtue of an order dated 22.2.1990 (Annexure-II). Thereafter on 18.8.1990, the petitioner was again appointed as paid apprentice till 20.2.1991 after which his appointment should be treated to have been automatically ceased. The said order is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. By an order dated 21.8.1990 (Annexure-V), hisappointment was said to have been irregular and as such was cancelled. The petitioner made a representation on 5.9.1990 (Annexure-VI). By an order dated 26.9.1990 (Annexure-VII), the petitioner was alleged to have been appointed in the post of paid apprentice. The said order indicates that the appointment was made at a salary of Rs. 950 per month for doing daily work purely on t...
Ratan Lal Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1809; [1999(82)FLR452]; (1999)2UPLBEC1002
D. K. Seth, J.1. It is alleged that the petitioner was not being paid his retiral benefits and pension for which he had approached the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court dated 3rd March, 1994 in Case No. 146 of 1993, the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 87. 659.24 Paisa. which was paid on 1st August, 1995 by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, no payment having been made, the petitioner filed another application under Section 33C(2) of the said Act. for payment. By virtue of an order dated 23rd October, 1997, further sum was directed to be paid to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the respondents are not disputing that the petitioner is entitled and eligible for payment of pension and other retiral benefits which are admissible to him in law. It appears that a sum of Rs. 97,160 has since been paid on 4th July, 1998. In case the orders of the Labour Court are not challenged by the re...
Dharm Pal Singh Vs. D.i.O.S. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC902
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri S.F.A.. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Even though counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 and Sri Rajiv Gupt is the Counsel for respondent No. 2 but at the time of hearing none appears fo respondent No. 2.2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. Respondent No. 2 is the Committee of Management of Sri Chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, Jani, district Meerut. On 12-5-96 a notice as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition was published inviting applications from the general public for ordinary membership, life membership and Sanrakshak membership of general body of the Institution. The petitioner made an application dated 24-6-96 as contained in Annexure-4 along with bank draft in the name of Manager C.L.M. Inter College, Jani, Meerut amounting to Rs. 1,000/- inte...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »