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.
Salora International Ltd. Vs. Commr. (A) of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC884; 1999LC836(Allahabad); 2000(120)ELT600(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. Though the impugned order is common, it deals with four applications under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, four sets of Court-fee are payable. Petitioner's Counsel agrees to make up the deficiency good.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 27th January, 1999 as modified by an order dated 1st February, 1999 passed in Appeal Nos. 423, 424, 425 and 426-C.E./Appl/ MRT/98 whereby in the aforesaid first appeals the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad was rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of the conditions of pre-deposit in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944.3. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.4. The dispute is about the Modvat credit which the petitioner availe...
Ghasita (Now Dead) and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3719
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3-12-1980 passed by Sri S.N. Prasad, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1979 connected with Sessions Trial Nos.143 and 144 of 1979 whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Ghasita and Karam Singh for the offence under Section 399, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment far a period of four and half years; convicted each of them for the offence under Section 402, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and further convicted each of them under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years. The sentences had been made to run concurrently.2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Ghasita had died. Consequently the appeal abates to his extent and this appeal is now left to be decided relating to accused-appellant Karam Sing...
Altaf Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4979
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. A sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector on 28-12-1978 at 7,15 a.m. from the revisionist Altaf and after completion of all the formalities prescribed by law and rules, one of the parts of sample was sent to public analyst who found the sample to deficient in respect of milk fat to the extent of 25% and non-fatty solids to the extent of 36%, as per report dated 10-2-1979. After necessary sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the revisionist in the Court of Magistrate on 12-7-1979. On trial, the Magistrate concerned convicted the revisionist under. Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He was to suffer further imprisonment for three months in case of default in payment of fine. Such judgment was passed by the Magistrate concerned on 30-4-1981. Aggrieved, the revisionis...
Smt. Kalpana Gulati and Others Vs. Viiith Addl. District Judge, Allaha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1656
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This is the tenant's writ petition against the order dated 14.6.1995, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad, andthe order dated 9.9.1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the VIIIth A.D.J., Allahabad, In proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1971 (the Act for short).FACTS2. One Smt. Husna Kunwar was the owner of the premises in dispute, namely, shop situated at 64/57, Meerganj, Allahabad. She sold it to respondent Nos. 3. Sri Hari Om Varshney and 4, Sri Prahlad Varshney on 7.8.1984. They are now it's landlord (now referred to as the landlord). The petitioners are the tenants of the shop at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. The landlord has filed an application on 23.9.1991 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground of his personal need of his sons. This application was admittedly after 3 years from the date of purchase of the shop, but in the...
Naveen Chandra Gupta, Advocate Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1679
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Central Government.2. This writ petition relates to the recent voting in the Lok Sabha on the confidence motion, which was rejected on 17.4.1999 by the Lok Sabha by a margin of only one vote.3. Several prayers have been made in this writ petition. A mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to count the votes cast by five B.S.P. Members or the vote of respondent No. 4. Sri Girdhar Gomango and a further prayer is that these votes be declared illegal. It has further been prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to reconvene the meeting of the Lok Sabha and get the voting done afresh. A further prayer is for a mandamus to continue the B.J.P. and coalition Government headed by Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee as Prime Minister.4. In our opinion, these are not matters for judicial review in view of the specific provision in Article 122(1) of the Constitution. The said Article ...
Haridas (Decd) Through L.Rs. Vs. Collector, Mahoba and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1737
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. In this matter, despite repeated ' opportunities granted by Hon'ble Division Bench on 5.11.1998 and 7.12.1998, none of the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. On 7.12.1998, the Division Bench recorded that further one month time and no more was permitted for filing a counter-affidavit. Yet, no counter-affidavit has been filed. The petition remains unanswered.2. The petitioner has now been substituted by his son, Thakur Das, as the petitioner. Haridas, had diedon 4 December, 1998. His son sought impleadment within time. Thus, in lieu of the petitioner, his son, Thakur Das, stands substituted. However, this does not affect the merits of the issues before this Court or before the authorities below.3. The contention of the petitioner is that tie held 5.51 acres of land in plot No. 2402. He says that he is a Chamar by caste and belongs to the scheduled caste and is living in village Chhikahara, Post and Tehsil Mahoba. District Mahoba. Plot No. 240...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Collector, Gorakhpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1879
Binod Kumar Roy andOnkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Thepetitioner, a workman within themeaning of the Workmen'sCompensation Act, 1923, has toknock the doors of this Court forrecovery of the amount awarded tohim pursuant to the order dated25.9.1979 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Gorakhpur as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. The facts in dispute are in a narrow compass. After the passing of the order aforementioned holding the petitioner to be entitled to have uompensation to the tune of Rs. 12,600 from respondent No. 2 with a further direction to respondent No. 2 to pay the said amount within one month alongwith cost of Rs. 45 which too was required to be paid within same time and despatch of that order for execution by the Collector, Gorakhpur/respondent No. 1 and reminder by the petitioner vide Annexure-3, no action has been taken by respondent No. 1 and hence this writ petition.The submissions :3. Sri Shyam Narain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of...
New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Sirtaj Bahadur Srivastava a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ150; 1999(3)AWC2141
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against judgment and award dated 15.12.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1st Addl, District Judge), Lucknow. in Claim Petition No. 99/90. awarding Rupees one lac. with interest as compensation against the appellant New India Assurance Co. Limited.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that it was on 23.1.1990 at 7.15 a.m. that Gaurav Srivastava son of respondent No. 1 aged about 18 years, student of class XI in Government Jublee Inter College, Lucknow who was going on his cycle to attend his college on Lucknow-Sitapur road near Annu Dharam Kanta, P. S. Hajlganj, Lucknow, was knocked down and killed on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. UGI-9520, Gaurav Srivastava succumbd to his injuries on the spot. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (father and mother of the deceased), thereafter filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,...
Sanjay Agarwal and Another Vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2319; (1999)2UPLBEC1442
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. Present : Mr.Tarun Agarwal on behalf of the petitioners. Messrs. Ashok Mehta, Chief Standing Counsel. U. P., B. N. Misra. Additional Standing Counsel. U. P., Krishna Prasad, Standing Counsel. U. P.. U. K. Pandey, Standing Counsel, U. P., Sabhajeet Yadav, Standing Counsel, U. P. Ashok Mohiley, Standing Counsel, for the Nagar Nigam. Allahabad and Shishir Kumar. Additional Standing Counsel, Central Government for the respondents.Mr. Alok Tandon. District Magistrate, Allahabad, Dr. S. K. Pandey, City Magistrate. Allahabad and Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Allahabad.2. All these matters which have been listed before the Court basically raise one issue on what the concept of a public road is. In answering this question, will see the resolution of all the cases. This Court is taking up Writ Petition No. 3119 of 1987 : Sanjay Agarwal v. Nagar Mahapalika. Allahabad as the leading case, as this has presented two issues. First the petitioner contends t...
Jagdish and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4660
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1983 passed by Sri Gangu Ram, the then Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1981 whereby he convicted each of the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. The prosecution story was that on 11-4-1979 at about 10.00 p.m. that when Damodar Prasad, the injured was returning from the Pyau of Heera Lal after realising the rent from the tenants of the shop to his house and reached near the Loothra Factory, the accused-appellants, Jagdish, Ram Prakash and Mahesh came there, that accused-appellant Jagdish was armed with a Pharsa accused-appellant Ram Prakash was empty handed while the accused-appellant Mahesh was armed with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »