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.
Ashok Iron and Steel Mills Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC62; 1999(113)ELT778(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 22-5-1998 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/1196/98-B1 by which the Tribunal in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3.5 lacs out of the adjudicated dues of Rs. 7,23,116/- and waived the demand for the balance.2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against an order dated 26-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Allahabad using the aforesaid demand.4. The petitioner had set up a steel rolling mill and in pursuance of a scheme contained in Rule 96ZP framed under Section 3A of the Act, opted to pay Excise duty on the basis of the capacity of the works. Th...
Ranbir Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1731
A.K. Yog, J.1. It is a petition by 20 persons, who claim to have been working as Head Constables in various police stations in different Districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. Petitioners claim that they were working on the date of filing of petition in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2.900 having their designation as Head Constables. According to the petitioners, this promotional pay scale in the cadre of Head Constable is the minimum in the pay scale provided for a cadre of Sub-Inspector. Relevant details have been given in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition as well as chart filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Petitioners claim that respective duties assigned to different cadres and officers have been provided in the Police Regulations. Regulations 55 to 57 provide for duties of Head Constable.3. Regulation 51 of the U. P. Police Regulations lays down duties assigned to a person working on the post of Sub-Inspector. It is contendedthat the duties as contemplated under relev...
Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal and Another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1753
O. P. Garg, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves the determination of the validity justification. correctness and propriety of the order of appointment of receiver under the provisions of Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for the relief of dissolution of the firm, rendition of accounts and partition and distribution of the properties and assets between the partners.2. The woodcut profile of the case is that a firm known as M/s. Ayodhya Prasad and Sons, a partnership firm was constituted and brought into existence for carrying on the business in Burmah Shell Products. Hindustan Livers Limited Products and Cement, etc. on 1st April. 1963. The partnership business of the firm was initially spread-over at five places, namely. Bilsi. Shaswan. Mathura. Ujhiani and Badaun. After sometimes, the business establishments at Mathura and Badaun were closed down on account of the policy of the Government to promote Indian Oil ...
Shiv Jor Pandey and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gora ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1808
Lakshmi Bihari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgments dated 23.4.1981, 29.9.1981 and 2.6.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.2. It appears that in the basic year, the name of Nanhu, father of contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was recorded over the plot in dispute as sirdar. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) claiming sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer allowed the satd objection. The appeal filed by Nanhu against the order of the Consolidation Officer was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by his judgment dated 30,6.1977 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case to the Court of Consolidation Officer for deciding the case after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. A copy of the order dated ...
Sudhakar Rai Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1807; [1999(82)FLR672]; (1999)3UPLBEC2244
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was a constable. He was dismissed from service on 24.8.1993. His appeal was dismissed on 27.2.1994. Both these orders have been challenged for being arbitrary and contrary to law.2. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit. Twice time was granted, once in 1994 and then on the request of standing counsel by stop order dated 22.8.1997. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petition be disposed of finally at the admission stage. His request was accepted and the petition is disposed of finally after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R. K. Ojha and Shri V. K. Rai brief-holder for the State.3. The charges framed against the petitioner were spoiling image of police department by taking liquor on 11.11.1992 at 5.15 p.m. along with four others at the residence of Himmat Singh and beating of studentby chappal by some one of the drunken persons. A charge of dereliction of duty between 17,8.1992 to 10....
Smt. Chotti Vs. Xiiith Additional District Judge, Agra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1813
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This is the tenant's writ petition against the orders dated 22.8.1997 and 9.3.1998 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 (Annexures-4 and 5 respectively) decreeing the suit of the landlord. Courts below have held that 22.2.1996 was the date mentioned in summon. It is the first date of hearing. No amount was deposited by this date. The Court further held that Rs. 600 was deposited on 25.9.1996 which is not only after first date of hearing but is also less than the amount calculated under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting- Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short). The suit is liable to be decreed.SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES--POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 2. I have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner argued that 22.02.1996 was not the first date of hearing. The first date of hearing is the date on which the Court applies its mind and the Court applied its mind on 22.08.1997 the date when the Judgment was delivered and ...
Madhav Prasad Dubey Vs. Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Allahabad and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1878; [1999(82)FLR875]; (1999)2UPLBEC1136
V.M. Sahai, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is claiming that Junior to the petitioner Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya has been regularised by the respondents. therefore, he, being at 51. No. 3 in the seniority list which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is entitled for regularisatton. Shri PremShankar Upadhyaya filed Writ Petition No. 260 of 1991 which was disposed of by this Court on 21.5.1993 on the ground that in case juniors to Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya had been regularised, in that case his claim for regularisation should also be considered. In view of the Judgment of this Court dated 21.5.1993, the respondents have regularised the service of Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya accepting the seniority list on 17.8.1996 which has been filed as Annexure-2A to the writ petition. The claim of the regularisation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents by order dated 20.11.1996 which has been filed as...
Lalsa Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Basti and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1828
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti on a petition (Misc. Case No. 34 of 1980) under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') granting certificate of succession in favour of Smt. Tirtha alias Tirthi alleged to be widow of Swaminath as well as the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Basti dismissing the appeal No. 89 of 1995 filed by the present petitioner.2. Heard Sri O. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri Anand Kumar Gupta, who appeared at the initial stage on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Both the parties agreed that since the petition raises pure questions of law, it was not necessary to call for the counter-affidavit and it may be decided finally on the basis of the material available on record. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the w...
Noida Entrepreneurs Association and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1922; (1999)2UPLBEC1356
Binod Kumar Roy andOnkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the New Okhla Industrial Development Area (Levy of Amenities Tax) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') as contained in Annexure-11, on the ground that it ultra vires provisions of the Constitution of India and the U. P. Industrial Area Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Their further prayer is to command respondent No. 4 NOIDA not to enforce the Regulations against the lease holders of Residential and Industrial sites including buildings situate within its territorial limits.The Submission :2. Mr. B. B. Paul, learned counsel of the petitioners, contended that the impugned Regulations ultra wires Article 265 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 19 of the Act. Since NOIDA had realised development charges from the petitioners and others, therefore, it cannot levy tax under Section 11 of the Act aforementioned. There is a well-settled distinc...
Smt. Munni Pathak and Others Vs. Director, Mahila and Bal Vikas Vibhag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1976; (1999)2UPLBEC1275
S.R. Singh, J.1. Advertisement dated January 17, 1995 for appointment of Mukhya Sevlka is sought to be quashed by means of the present petition.2. Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notification is vitiated stemming from the reason that all the posts were sought to be filled by direct recruitment whereas according to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules. 1992, 25% of the vacancies ought to have been filled by promotion from amongst qualified and eligible Aganwadi workers. The submission made by the learned counsel is bereft of merits. As a matter of fact. according to the rules notified by Notification dated November 16. 1992, the post of Mukhya Sevika was envisaged to be filled by direct recruitment through departmental selection committee attended with interview. The rules were amended by means of the Notification No. 457/60-2-95-58 457/60-2-95-58 Adhi-90. dated December 26, 1996 by which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »