Allahabad Court January 2000 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.
Constable No. 860020697, Rama Kant Shukla Vs. Union of India Through t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC783; (2000)1UPLBEC687
A.K. Yog, J.1. This petition has been filed by one Constable, Rama Kant Shukla, serving in Border Security Force. Admittedly, provisions of Border Security Force Act, 1968, are applicable to the facts of the present case. Petitioner was serving somewhere in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 21.6.1995 where some Incident alleged to have taken place. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25th July. 1995 under 09 Battalion Border Security Force, where he was serving. He was put under summary trial by Summary Security Force Court as contemplated under the aforesaid Act. Evidence was led at Gujarat as isevident from the Annexures filed along with the writ petition.2. The dismissal order dated 23.2.1996 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) was passed and promulgated at Gujarat as contemplated under aforesaid Act.3. A supplementary-affidavit was filed by the petitioner when this Court directed to disclose the cause of action. In para 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit. It is stated tha...
Sudershan Chopra Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC983
R.H. Zaidi, J.1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.2. By means of thts petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Court below rejecting petitioner's application to return the memo of appeal to respondent No. 2.3. It appears that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale and for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by defendant ; but ultimately the suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 6.2.1999. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the defendant-respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Court below. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Rule 28 of General Rules (Civil). It was contended that the memo of appeal contained argumentative matter, therefore, the same was liableto be returned to respondent No. 1 ...
Sita Ram Sheoharey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1022
Ravi S. Dhavan and Aloke Chakrabarti, JJ.1. Insofar as the litigation is concerned, tt is terminal after the decision of the Supreme Court dated 17th September, 1996 when the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad dated 23rd November, 1983 were dismissed. The issue related to the grant of the licences for wholesale vend of the Indian made foreign liquor in Form FL 2 on payment of fixed fee in accordance with the U. P. Excise Manual so framed under the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. The licences were effective from 1st April. 1993 to 31st March. 1994. Two and half months after the licences had been granted, i.e., a contract betweenthe licencees and the State of Uttar Pradesh was complete, a notification dated 25th May. 1983 was issued required the licensees to pay. assessed fee. in addition to licence fee. The licence fee had already been paid and deposited. This action under the notification wa...
Janki Prasad and Sons. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR209(All); [2001]118TAXMAN71(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has stated a case and referred the following questions stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dated August 9, 1989, passed in I. T. A. No. 500 (All) of 1988 for the assessment year 1985-86 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the jurisdiction under Section 263 was rightly and legally invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 43B read with Explanation 2 as added by the Finance Act, 1989, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the said Explanation will apply retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1984 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of sales tax which remained outstanding on the last day of the accounting year is t...
Sia Ram (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2252
M.C. Jain, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Siaram against the judgment and order dated 24-10-1980 passed by Sri R.C. Gupta, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1980. He has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. under Section 394, I.P.C. Life imprisonment has been awarded for the former offence and ten years rigorous imprisonment for the latter one. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. One Lakhan was also tried with him, but he was acquitted.2. Broad spectrum of the prosecution case may be noted. In between the night of 28-29-10-1979 28-29-10-1979 at about midnight an armed robbery was committed at the house of Ballo PW 1 in village Sisora, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur by four persons who looted ornaments from her person and from the person of her husband Rupan. The murder of her husband Rupan was also committed in this incident and injuries w...
Janki Prasad and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]246ITR209(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has stated a case and referred the following questions stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dated 9-8-1989, passed in I. T. A. No. 500 (All) of 1988 for the assessment year 1985-86 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the jurisdiction under section 263 was rightly and legally invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 43B read with Explanation 2 as added by the Finance Act, 1989, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the said Explanation will apply retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1984 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of sales tax which remained outstanding on the last day of the accounting year is to be added ...
Ram Swaroop Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)1UPLBEC714
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for therespondents.2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Messenger Boy on 15.9.1989 on the term and condition that his first two years of the period of service will be treated as probationary period and in case his service is found satisfactory, his service will be temporary vide Annexure-1. Thereafter by order dated 4.10.1991 (Annexure-6), he was informed that his work was not found satisfactory, but to give him an opportunity to improve his work, his service was extending by six months.Thereafter by letter dated 31.12.1991 (vide Annexure-8). he was warned that he has not shown improvement in his work, and he should improve it failing which his service shall be terminated. He was granted another extension of his probation for 1 year vide letter dated 26.3.1992 (Annexures 9 and 10) in which he was agafn told to improve his work. His probation was again extended for 4 months vide An...
Fazal Ahmed Vs. K. N. Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1206
D. K. Seth, J. 1. Leave is granted to amend the cause title and the preamble.2. S.C.C. Case No. 7 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the petitioner-defendant before the learned District Judge, 15th Court. Ghaziabad/SCC Court. During the proceeding of the suit, the deffence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off. That order has neither been challenged earlier nor even challenged in this revisional application. The suit was decreed. Mr.S. G. Hasnain, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not properly addressed and in the absence of production of the acknowledgment due card, there cannot be any presumption that the notice was served on the defendant-petitioner. He further contends that the certificate of posting cannot be relied upon for the purpose of drawing presumption of service. He further contends that since the rate of rent is less than Rs. 2.000 per month. Act 13 of 1972 was ...
Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT580(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs :'(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Detention Memos, dated 30-12-1999 and 31-12-1999 (Annexures 19A, 19F and 20);(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Unit forthwith.'2. The petitioner's case is that it has an industrial unit manufacturing excisable goods i.e. M.S. Ingots/Runner Riser. Under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the Central Government has notified the aforesaid commodity and, therefore...in respect of the goods manufactured by the petitioner...excise duty is payable on the basis of...capacity of production which is to be determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise in accordance with the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. In pursuance of this power, the Commissioner of Cen...
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. Vs. Commr. (Appeals) C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC436; 2000LC454(Allahabad); 2000(119)ELT524(All)
ORDERP.K.Jain, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. It manufactures Banaspati Ghee (vegetable oil). During process of manufacturing vegetable oil a bye-product known as soap stock is generated. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner does not clear the soap stock as such it is used captively for manufacturing of acid oil which is cleared from the factory. Soap stock is not a marketable commodity as such and, therefore, not excisable. Prior to 23-7-1996 soap stock was exempted from payment of duty vide notification dated 1-3-1994. The said notification was rescinded w.e.f. 23-7-1994 and Central Excise authorities were of the view that soap stock was classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 1507.00 and petitioner was liable to pay Central Excise duty at the rate of 25 per cent. The petitioner filed the declaration under Rule 173C and declared the value of soap stock at the rate of Rs. 40...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »