Allahabad Court February 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.
Udaipal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2256
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and summoning order dated 9-6-1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and the entire proceeding of Case No. 1150 of 1995 (Crime No. 168 of 1994), State of U.P. v. Udai Pal Singh under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act., P.S. Binwar, district Hamirpur.2. It appears that Smt. Poonam Singh opposite party No. 2 lodged a report on 26-7-1994 at P.S. Binwar, district Hamirpur against the applicants under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegation that she was married with Balwant Singh applicant No. 3 according to Hindu Rites in the year 1991. When she started residing with the applicants they started demanding dowry and treating her with cruelty. Ultimately she was rescued by the police from the confinement of the applicants on 27-6-1994. On the above report the police registered a case a crime No. 68 of 1994 and after invest...
Ramesh Chandra and Etc. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2771
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioners by moving these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. have prayed for quashing the proceedings pending before City Magistrate, Bareilly in Case No. 9 of 1992, 11 of 1992, 10 of 1992, 12 of 1992, 16 of 1992, 1 of 1992, 19 of 1992, 13 of 1992, 6 of 1992, 14 of 1992, 26 of 1992, 3 of 1992 and 18 of 1992.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated, are that the applicants in above petitions are engaged in business of preparation of 'RAAB' which is a concentrated form of 'SHEERA' is done through open pan process and due to operation of Sheera Bhatti by the applicants and the use of husk of paddy and khoi of sugarcane as fuel in the said Bhatti it causes air pollution. Earlier Pollution Control Board had issued notice under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to show cause as to why directions contained in the Act may not be issued against them. They submitted reply to the above notice. In the meantime, the City Magistr...
Kanoria Chemicals and Ind. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC442
ORDERR. K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited, has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order No. (i) 22/Demand/78 dated 8.12.1978 under C.No. V-14-A (18) 208/77/11965 dated 26.12.1978 (Annexure A. 4); (ii) 21 - Demand/ 78 dated 7.12.1978 issued under C.No. V-14-B (18) 207/77/11957 dated 26.12.1978 (Annexure A.5); (iii) 10-Demand /78 dated 28.8.1978 issued under C. No. V-14.AA (3) 141/78/6854 dated 1.9.1978 (Annexure A.6); (iv) Order No. Nil dated February 1982 issued under C.No. V-14-B(3) 130/79/1145 dated 1.3.82 issued under C.No V-14-AA (3) 129/79/1138 dated 1.3.1982 (Annexure A.8) Order No. Nil dated February 1982 issued under C.No. V-14-H (3) 128/79/1148 dated 1.3.1982 (Annexure A.9) and the orders passed in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise New Delhi No. 1080-1081-CE-79 issued under C. No. 12 and 13-CE/Appeal/Alld/79 dated 22.10.1079 (Annexure A.10) and the order passed in revision petition by the Government of In...
Brijendra Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC750
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. These two writ petitions, the second one having been connected with the first one vide order dated 25.11.1999, were listed before our Bench for the first time on 17.1.2000 in which cross prayers have been made. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. It may be mentioned that on an application filed by the petitioners of the first petition, before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship vide his administrative order dated 11.1.2000 directed to place it before a Bench presided over by one of us. (Binod Kumar Roy, J.). 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44906 of 1999 has been filed by 5 Advocates of the Collectorate Bar, Etawah, for commanding the respondents by issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect to and to quash (i) the Notification dated September 18, 1997 (as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and(ii) the letter dated 22.7.1999 of th...
Union of India and Another Vs. Super Gold Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC835
D.K. Seth, J.1. The only point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court did not discharge its obligation as provided under Rule 5B of Order XXVII of the Code in endeavouring to arrive at a settlement.2. Mr. Pankaj Mittal. learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that there was no attempt on the part of the appellant to arrive at a settlement and they had never applied for settlement before trial court, therefore, this question cannot be raised, adopting a ground, for admission of the Second Appeal for the first time.3. I have heard learned counselfor the parties.4. Rule 5B was inserted in Order XXVII by 1976, Amendment of the Code. The object for which this rule was inserted is that in suits to whichGovernment is a party, and the Government, now under the Constitution undertaking economic activities in a vast and widening public sector, is being Involved Increasingly in disputes with private Individuals, if su...
Syed Mohammad Hamid Rizvi Vs. Upper Nibandhak (Prashasan) Sahkari Sami ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1331; [2000(85)FLR134]; (2000)2UPLBEC1080
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was Assistant Development Officer (Sahkarita). He was suspended on 18.5.1979. District Assistant Registrar, Fatehpur, was appointed enquiry officer. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 18.1.1980 to which he submitted a reply on 13.6.1980. In the impugned order of dismissal dated 29.1.1990. it has been mentioned that the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 7.7.1988 to Deputy Registrar. Cooperative Societies, Allahabad. Relying on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and recovery of amount has been ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 29.1.1990 by means of the present writ petition.2. I have heard Sri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shrt Noorul Huda. learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, standing counsel has also produced the records.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no informat...
Munni and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2923
J.C. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22-5-1980 passed by the then Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No.244 of 1979 convicting appellant No.1 under Section 302, I.P.C. and appellant No.2 under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life.2. At the outset it may be mentioned that as far as appeal of appellant No.1 Munni is concerned, the same has abated on account of his death during the pendency of appeal.3. The incident in question relates to 25-5-1978 and it is alleged that on that day at about 10 P.M. Majhil Singh P.W.1, his deceased brother Kallu Singh and Km. Keta daughter of the deceased were irrigating their fields from the tubewell, which had light of an electric bulb. At that hour the appellant No.1 Munni Pandit armed with a gun and Mithauri with a country-made pistol along with two unknown persons who were armed with lathi came near the field of Majhil Singh. On seeing Kallu Si...
J. Qumairjee and Co. Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Dehradun and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC850
A.K. Yog, J.1. Proceedings under Arbitration Act were initiated between the parties wherein an Arbitrator was appointed in the year 1987. Arbitrator rendered award dated December 30, 1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).2. Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the then existing provision of Arbitration Act were rejected videorder dated 25.4.1996 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the Appeal (M.C.A. No. 74 of 1996) has been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment and order dated October 30, 1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).3. Appeal having been dismissed, petitioner (M/s. J. Qumairjee and Company through its proprietor Sri J.K. Jain) has preferred this petition.4. In the instant case, it is not disputed at the Bar that no objection was raised regarding enforcement of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and proceedings continued under the Act existing prior to 1996 (i.e., before coming into force of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996).5. Section 39(2) ...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Passenger Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000All205
M. Katju, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my esteemed brother Hon'ble G. P. Mathur, J. and regret my inability to agree with the same. Hence I am giving my own decision.2. The petitioner is an owner of four buses registered as contract carriages with the Regional Transport Authority, Mathura. The petitioner entered into a contract with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A true copy of the agreement is Annexure to the writ petition. Under this contract the petitioner has placed its vehicles at the disposal of the Corporation for carrying the employees of the Corporation from their residence to the office of the Corporation. The petitioner is paid charges not according to the number of passengers but according to the kilometers covered by the vehicle. In lieu of rendering such services the petitioneris paid an amount as provided in Article 31 of the Contract (Page 29 of the writ petition.).3. By means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the levy of passenger tax under the U.P. ...
Brij Bhushan Lal and Sons Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR353(All); [2001]114TAXMAN356(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders dated March 17, 1999, passed by the Designated Authority, i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut (respondent No. 1), whereby the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme have been rejected for the reason that there were no arrears of tax due from the petitioner on the date of the declaration, i.e., December 51, 1998. 2. The petitioner's case is that by Section 89 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, a scheme for settlement of tax disputes was introduced and the petitioner, which is a Hindu undivided family, filed declarations for theassessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93. Under the scheme only an assessee against whom tax was in arrears could approach for the settlement of the dispute in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 88 provides for settlement of tax payable in respect of tax arrears and there is no dispute between th...