Allahabad Court August 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.
Om Bihari Malhotra Vs. Smt. Nisha Malhotra and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3045
S.C. Verma and S.K. Jain, JJ. 1. The present appeal under Section 47(b) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 15.7.99, passed by the, Family court, rejecting the objection filed under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the proceeding under Section 10 of the Act initiated by the mother of the minor child.2. The fact of the case are that Smt. Nisha Malhotra filed an application under Section 10 of the Act for the custody of the minor child, namely. Km. Swati Malhotra, her daughter from the wed-lock with the deceased Depak Malhotra, who died on 20.6.95. It has been alleged that the property situated at Staff House compound Mallital, Nainital belonged to the deceased and they were residing at Nainital. Till the time of death of Deepak Malhotra, the minor child was with them at Nainital, but after the death of Deepak Malhotra, they had to go to Delhi for performan...
Ram Pher Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3520
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has filed a suit challenging the recovery sought to be made by the bank. Though details or particulars of the recovery challenged in the suit has not been disclosed either in the plaint or in this application, but from Annexure-2 to this position, it appears that the recovery was undertaken by the Collector under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on a certificate being forwarded to him under Section 11A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act. 1973. Admittedly one other recovery has been challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition, which is pending.2. Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present recovery is different from that which is involved in the said writ petition. In the said writ petition, the charging of compound interest has been challenged. In the present case, the respondent had also charged interest at the compound rate which cannot be charged. The petitioner has a...
Davendra Pal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR127(All); [2000]109TAXMAN455(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. These two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by Davendra Pal Singh, an assessee, under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, respectively. The petitioner challenges orders dated January 31, 1995, whereby penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for the two years, a common order dated October 10, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Meerut, whereby the petitioner's revision petitions against the assessment orders moved under Section 25 of the Act have been partly allowed, and, the assessment orders dated March 29, 1994, for the two years, respectively. The petitioner further prays that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Meerut, to declare the land as agricultural land and directing the Assessing Officer, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bulandshahr, not to proceed with the ...
Durga Prasad Vs. Examination Controller, University of Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3UPLBEC1996
A.K. Yog, J.1. Petitioner took admission in B.A. Part I and pursued his said course in academic session 1995-96. Having passed his B.A. Part II he got admission in B.A. Part III. He appeared in the examination with Roll No. 15070 conducted by the University of Allahabad through Examination Controller (Respondent). As a consequence of Petitioner being declared successful in B.A. Part II examination, he was allowed by the university to take admission in B.A. Part III course and he accordingly joined the said course. At the close of the academic session 1997-98 he was allowed to appear in examination of B.A. Part III along with all other similarly situated students without any rider. It is stated in Paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition that Petitioner appeared in B.A. Part III examination without any objection on the part of the university.2. Petitioner asserts that result of B.A. Part III examinations of the petitioner has not been declared. The Petitioner however, received a letter dated 16...
Smt. Leelamma Nair Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3UPLBEC1791
A.S. Gill and R.D. Mathur, JJ.1. The petitioner Smt. Leelamma Nair has filed this writ petition with the prayer for issuance of a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the amount of pension gratuity etc. and for payment of 18% interest for the period of delayed payment of pensionary benefits. She has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 7-9-1998, 16-9-1998, 16-10-1998 and 27-10-1998. contained in Annexures No. 11. 13, 14 and 15 respectively. She has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to realise the arrears of rent and damages at the rate' which was being charged at the time of her superannuation from job or with a slight increase as the Hon'ble Court may direct in the circumstances of the case.2. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the department of Medical and ...
Ashoka Metal Decor (P) Ltd. and Adit Metal Decor Vs. Commissioner (App ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC495
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. These two petitions by different petitioners arise in similar circumstances and are directed against a common order. The petitioners are represented by Sri A.P. Mathur, Advocate while the Respondents are represented by Sri Vikram Gulati, Advocate. Both of them have been heard.2. The petitions are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad whereby in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35-F, he partly waived the condition of the pre-deposit of adjudicated dues.3. The petitioners had availed the Modvat Credit in respect of inputs which were used in the production of goods which during the process of production, were sent to other persons outside the factory for job work. This is permissible under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, Sub-rule (11) whereof requires. that if inputs or partially processed inputs are not received back in the factory by the manufacturer of final products within a pe...
Capt. Anjit Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1422
A.S. Gill and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ.1. By means of the present writ petition Capt. Anjit Singh, Chief Flight Instructor of Civil Aviation Department of the Government of U. P. has claimed promotion to the post of Government Pilot (Fixed Wing) after ousting the opposite party No. 5 Sri Ali Amir. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus staying the deliberations of the Departmental Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Government Pilot (Helicopter Wing). The petitioner hasalso assailed the order of his transfer to Faizabad from Lucknow.2. According to the petitioner, he started working as a Pilot in the year 1970 while the opposite party No. 6 Pragyesh Misra started working on the said post in the year 1987. He was appointed as a regular Pilot in the Civil Aviation Department of the State Government of U. P. in the year 1975. The opposite party No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Pilot (Helicopter Wing) in the year 1995 and is likely to be recommended by the Departmen...
Brij Basi Udyog, Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2946
Yatindra Singh, J.1. M/s. Brij Basi Udyog (the petitioner) is a firm registered with Registrar of Firms, Bombay. It manufactures fire-fighting equipments at Mathura. There was another firm named M/s. Brij Basi Engineers (the other firm for short), which was registered with Registrar of Firms. U. P., Lucknow. The other firm functioned as a contractor for supply of the unfinished fabricated components for the petitioner. It had no other business except to act as a contractor for the petitioner. It was dissolved due to non-availability of work from the petitioner due to whichits workmen were retrenched on 13.12.1981. Thirty one workmen raised an industrial dispute about termination of their services, which was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. The Labour Court by its award dated 22.12.1984 has held that :. the petitioner and other firm are one and the same - the other firm being a camouflage for the petitioner : . one workman, namely, Gopi Nath was not employed by the ...
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3020; (2000)ILLJ380All
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. Is a notice, under the prescribed proforma, to the State Government before retrenchment of a workman mandatory Should the retrenchment compensation be actually paid before retrenchment, or tendering the amount or information to the workman to collect the amount issufficient compliance of the retrenchment? These, amongst the other questions, are involved in this writ petition. This is how they arise.FACTS 2. Sr! Ashiq All (the contesting respondent) was appointed as a helper In a pumping station on dally wages on 2.2.1990 in U. P. Jal Nigam (the Nigam for short). Subsequently, a decision was taken on 20.5.1991 by the Chairman of the Nigam that there are surplus persons working in the Nigam and persons appointed on dally wages after 31.8.1989 be retrenched. In pursuance of the decision, the services of the contesting respondent was retrenched on 20.7.1991. According to the Nigam, a notice was issued to the contesting respondent but could not be served as he was abse...
Smt. Mehrun Nisha Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3088
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Opposite party No. 8 Smt. Alimun Nisha had filed a suit being Original Suit No. 1208 of 1991 in the court of Munslf. Gorakhpur, against one Smt. Soghra Begum. The said suit was decreed on 19th April, 1992. Against that, an appeal was preferred by Smt. Soghra Begum, which was dismissed on 28th September. 1993. The Second Appeal there out was dismissed on 9th January. 1997. The decree passed in Original Suit No. 1208 of 1991 was put into execution in Execution Case No. 2 of 1998. The petitioner, who was not a party to the Original Suit No. 1208 of 1991. had filed an application in the said execution proceeding praying for stay of execution as against her. The petitioner is defendant No. 1 in Original Suit No. 1777 of 1990 filed by one Gulam Jeelanl in the court of Munsif Sahar, Gorakhpur. The opposite party No. 8 Smt. Alimun Nisha is not a party to the said suit. The application filed by the petitioner, as contended by Mr. Rafiuddin Ansari, Advocate, was purported to hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »