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.
Nar Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC791
Shitla Prasad Srlvastava, J.1. Heard Sri S. 5. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner.2. By means of this wrtt petition, the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the impugned orders dated 25.2.1997 and 19.6.1995 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexures-4 and 2 to the writ petition). The revision which was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation exercising powers of the appellate authority. The appellant court in the appeal filed under Section 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land HoldingsAct granted Interim order, which was challenged by the petitioner in revision under Section 48 of the Act.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no doubt that the order passed by the appellate authority s interlocutory order but nevertheless the order passed by the appellate authority is not under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Hol...
Dr. Manvendra Misra Vs. Gorakhpur University and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1028; (2000)1UPLBEC702
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Against the Impugned order of the Vicc-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University dated 31.1.1997 (copy of which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition), the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition had been admitted by order dated 26.11.1997 and hence it cannot be dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy. We are not in agreement with this submission. There is no such hard and fast principle that if a writ petition has been entertained or admitted or if counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged then the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Tewari V. D.S.O., AIR 1992 All 331. In that decision, this Court held that it was not inclined to reject the writ pet...
Harpal Singh Vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Bench No. 5, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1075; [2000(86)FLR334]; (2000)1UPLBEC704
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of dismissal dated 23.1.1987 Annexure-7 to the petition and the order dated 30.10.1987 dismissing the appeal vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition and the impugned order dated 12.11.1993 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Annexure-9 to the petition dismissing the petitioner's claim petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the year 1980 after a selection against a permanent post in the G.R.P. constable cadre. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that he served the department sincerely, honestly and diligently at Fatehpur railway station. However, on 24.4.1986 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by the Dy. S. P., Railways, Varanasi, alleging that on 10.1.1986 the petitioner was on duty on three platforms, i.e., platform Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at Fatehpur railway station from 6 p.m. to 12 night. On that very day. i.e., on 10.1.1986 at abou...
Sureya Prakash Vs. Raghuvir Saran Agarwal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1108
D.K. Seth, J.1. The defendant-revisionist sought for disclosing of particulars by the plaintiff by means of an application. By an order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Barellly in Original Suit No. 151 of 1998 rejected the said application of the defendant-revisionist. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 92 of 1999 was preferred before the learned District Judge. Bareilly. By an order dated 6.11.1999. the learned District Judge dismissed the said revision on the ground of Jurisdiction inasmuch as the valuation of the suit was beyond pecuniary Jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. Therefore, this revision has been preferred along with Section 5 application for condonation of delay on the ground that on mistaken advice the petitionerhad been prosecuting revision before the learned District Judge.2. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist, the delay Is condoned.3. Order VI, Rule 5 provides that where the Court thinks just, it may a...
indira Rani Devi Vs. Nagar Palika and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000All346
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges a notification dated 12-4-1980 issued by the Government of U.P. whereby the rules regarding the levy of show tax on cinema houses situate within the territorial limits of Nagar Pallka, Puranpur have been published. A copy of the notification has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure 4. The petitioner further prays that the Nagar Palika be restrained from realising show tax and octroi duty on the import of films from the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri V. B. Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 i.e. Nagar Palika, Puranpur. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the State of U.P.3. The petitioner's case is that she owns a cinema house situate at Puranpur which was a town area governed by the provisions of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1940. On 22-4-1977 the Governor in exercise of powers under Section...
Cossul and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR312(All); [2000]113TAXMAN333(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated October 31, 1980, passed in ITA Nos. 942 and 943 (All) of 1977-78 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the word 'lawfully' appearing in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appointment of the sole selling agent, Tools Implements and Machinery Distributors, was in contravention of Sections 294 and 314 of the Companies Act, 1956, and, therefore, the sole selling agency commission paid by the assessee-company was not an admissible deduction in working out the business income ?'2. We have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, at whose instance this reference has...
Ved Prakash Tyagi Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Pilibhit and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC981
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment of the Judge. Small Causes Court dated 30.8.1991 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 21.2.1998 affirming the findings recorded by the trial court.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the land lord-respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 50 besides he was liable to pay Rs. 20 per month as electricity charges and Rs. 7.50 per monthtowards house and water tax as part of rent. The tenant failed to pay arrears of rent after September, 1982. He gave a notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The petitioner, after having received It did not comply with the same. The petitioner contested the suit. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month. He admitted his liabi...
Smt. Santosh Kumari Vs. Brij Kushore (Since Deceased) and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC979
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri G. D. Srlvastava. learned senior counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.2. A land acquisition reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (being LandAcquisition Reference No. 41 of 1996) was made by the Additional Collector. Greater Noida. Ghazlabad. which was pending for decision before Xth Additional District Judge. Ghazlabad. The owner of the land Is said to have died on 25.10.1997. Thereafter an application for substituting heirs and legal representatives was moved by Manoj Kumar and Smt. San tosh Jalan stating that there is no other heir of the deceased. Objections were filed on behalf of Smt. Santosh Kumari the present revisionist who stated that Brij Kishore Jalan died leaving behind sons and three daughters, namely Renu Agarwal, Meenu Agarwal and Parul Agarwal. The Reference Court allowed the application for substitution and permitted Manoj Kumar and Smt. Santosh Kumari Ja...
Camphor Factory Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC985; [2000(85)FLR111]; (2000)IILLJ713All; (2000)1UPLBEC708
D. S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri K. M. L. Hajela, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Malaviya. the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. and Sri Vipin Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.2. Camphor Factory Karmcharl Sangh, Collector Buckganj. Barellly. a society registered under the Trade Union Act. professing to protect the interest of unidentified labourers employed in various unidentified factories, has approached this Court through Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the Government Order dated 6th December. 1995, published in Hindi Dally 'Amar Ujala' dated 16th December. 1995. a copy whereof is Annexure-8 to the petition.3. Under the impugned Government Order. Camphor and Allied Products Limited. Collector Buckganj, Bareilly, the respondent No. 4, an industrial establishment, becomes entitled to have the ownership of 96 tenements of the S...
Wipro Ltd. and Another Vs. Baba Enterprises
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC996
D. K. Seth, J. 1. Leave is granted to amend the preamble to the Section 115 application.2. Original Suit No. 274 of 1996 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Dehradun, was fixed for framing of Issues on 9th September, 1998. On the said date, no one on behalf of the defendant was present. The suit was fixed for hearing ex parte on 9th November, 1998. On the said date, an application was filed for recalling the order for hearing ex parte. On the ground that the said application was not affirmed by an affidavit as well as on the question of merit, the said application was dismissed by an order dated 9th December. 1999. This order has since been challenged in this revision.3. Mr. Ranjit Saxena. learned counsel for the revisionists submits that since the date was fixed for framing issues, it was open to the Court to settle the issues even if the parties were not present on the basis of the issues that might have been suggested or proposed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »