Allahabad Court March 2000 Judgments
V.S. Polypack Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC85(All)
P.K. Jain, J. 1. The revisionist applied for grant of eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as, 'the Act') in respect of total investment of Rs. 73,25,000. The revisionist claimed that its unit was a new one. The Divisional Level Committee granted eligibility certificate on June 10, 1995 which was effective from May 6, 1995 only with regard to the investment of Rs. 9,40,000. Aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the claim in respect of remaining fixed capital investment the dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, hence this revision is filed by the dealer.2. It is not disputed that the unit which the dealer claims to be a new unit was purchased by it from U.P. Financial Corporation in 1994. The dealer's claim is that the date of first sale by the revisionist was June 10, 1994. The dealer claimed that fixed capital investment in respect of land and building was Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Pahunchi Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3799
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed in this Court by the petitioner, Pahunchi Lal, with a prayer for quashing the detention order passed against him by the District Magistrate, Agra, dated 1-7-1999 and a consequent order of approval of the same dated 28-8-1999 passed by the U. P. Advisory Board, Lucknow. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner that the respondents may be commanded by issuing a writ of mandamus to release the petitioner forthwith from the alleged detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.The principal ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner as founded solely on the ground that there exists absolutely no ground for his further detention in jail under the abovesaid Act after the availability of the report of the Central Food Laboratory (in short called as 'CFL') dated 4-9-1999 by which the petitioner was absolved of any adulter...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv NaraIn Tripathi Vs. Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Reral Enginee ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1663
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 9.2.2000 Annexure-1, to the writ petition by which the drawing and disbursing powers of the petitioner as an Executive Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department. Mirzapur has been taken away from him and given to one Sri D. B. Singh. Executive Engineer of Allahabad Division.2. The petitioner had earlier filed several writ petitions. He filed Writ Petition No. 24975 of 1999 against the transfer order dated 1.6.1999 which was stayed by this Court on 16.6.1999. In that case, counter-affidavit along with stayvacation application has been filed and the petition is still pending. The petitioner was thereafter suspended by order dated 9.6.1999 but he filed Writ Petition No. 24765 of 1999 which was stayed by this Court on 15.6.1999. In that case also, counter-affidavit along with stay vacation application has been filed and the petition is pending. Thereafter the petitioner filed...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Shankar Gautam (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. City Magistrate/Rent ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1661
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.1983 whereby the disputed accommodation has been declared as vacant.2. The petitioner was admittedly tenant of the disputed premises. He was transferred from Jhansi to Lucknow in the year 1973. He thereafter retired on 1.12.1974. Smt. Gudlno Devi was owner of the property. Smt. Saroj Kumari, respondent No. 2, purchased the disputed house from the erstwhile owner Gudino Devi. After purchase of the property she moved an application on 31.8.1981 to declare the disputed accommodation as vacant on the allegations that the petitioner was transferred in the year 1973 and on such transfer the accommodation should be treated as vacant. The petitioner filed objection stating that he was transferred for a short time and thereafter he retired from service on 1.12.1974 and was residing in the disputed house. He also claimed that even after transfer his family members continued to live in the disputed house. The Rent Co...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Singh Vs. Lucknow University, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1743
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. Sri Narendra Singh has preferred this writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of ceriforari quashing the entire process of selection and appointment on the post of Lab Technician in Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals. K.G. Medical College. Lucknow and the advertisement issued on 2.6.1994 by the opposite party No. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote him on the post of Lab Technician and not to make any appointment directly on the said post.2. The petitioner's case is that the Government, vide its order dated 6.3.1990 had laid down certain rules for the post of Lab Technician being filled up by way of promotion. According to the said order, only the senior Lab Attendant having an experience of 10 years and holding a High School certificate was eligible to be appointed to the said post. There was no provision for direct appointment of a candidate as Lab Technician. The seniority list of the se...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2431; 2000CriLJ2921
B. K. Rathi, J. 1. Both these petitions Involved the same question of fact and law. The petitioner in both the cases is same person and opposite parties in Petition No. 3542 of 1997 is the wife of the opposite party in Petition No. 847 of 1998. Therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. I have heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri L. P. Nalthani, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.3. Two complaints under Section 138. N. I. Act were filed against the applicant, one each by opposite party of these petitions. It is admitted that the applicant Shailesh Kumar Agrawal and the opposite party, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal are real brothers and opposite party, Smt. Sandhya Agrawal is the wife of Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. The two brothers Shailesh Kumar Agrawal and Dinesh Kumar Agrawal were partners in the firm M/s. Chhotfwala Bhojnalaya, Swarg Ashram, Pauri Garhwal. Thereafter a family settlement on 15.2.1995 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Agro Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC71(All)
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel.2. Appeal against order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the application under Section 4-A for grant of eligibility certificate was decided ex parte. The sole contention of Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel is that as many as seven grounds were taken in the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee for rejection of the application which were separately discussed by the revisionist in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not consider each ground separately while dismissing the appeal and passed slip-shod order observing that the Tribunal has gone through the order of the Divisional Level Committee and material on record and that the Divisional Level Committee has rejected the application for sufficient reasons. His submission is that the Tribunal ought to have considered each and every g...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Pandey and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3887
M.C. Jain, J.1. Eight persons were tried in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1980 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi Sri D. N. Sharma. They were 1. Kanhaiya Pandey, 2. Chandra Bali Pandey, 3. Bachnu, 4. Ramjit, 5. Sarju, 6. Ram Charan, 7. Ganpat and 8 Chhedi Pandey. Learned trial Judge acquitted Bachnu and Sarju giving them benefit of doubt. However, by judgment and order dated 5-12-1980 he convicted and sentenced the remaining other accused-appellants named above. All of them have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. Each of them has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. Both the sentences of each of them have been directed to run concurrently.2. The victim of the offence was Nand Lal The incident took place on 21-11-1979 at about 6.30 a.m. at the outskirts of village Kashipur Karahua, Police Station Rohania, Dis...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Sanjai Singh Alias Sanju Raja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4168
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the order dated 10-2-2000 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur in case Crime No. 924 of 1999, P.S. Kotwali, Lalitpur, by which the opposite party has been released on bail for offences under Sections 392, 364, 201, 411, I.P.C.2. I have heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the opposite party.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party in this petition that the applicant can move an application for cancellation of the bail under Clause (2) of Section 439, Cr. P.C. It is contended that there is a specific provision under Clause (2) above and therefore, the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised.4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party in support of the argument has also referred to the case of Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 1995 (2) JIC 1656. It was held in this case tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sheel Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Mishra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1522
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The core question in the petition is as to whether the disputed accommodation is vacant or not.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that one Ram Chandra Mishra was the tenant of a portion of the disputed house No. 3A, 274, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. He was selected for the post of store and purchase officer in the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal. in the year 1964. He shifted to Karnal with his entire family from the disputed house. After him, it was occupied by his elder brother, R. A. Mishra. In the year 1965 Sri R. A. Mtshra died and after his death the petitioner, his son. continued to occupy the same along with his younger brother, Sunil Kumar Mishra.3. The landlords of the house in question sold it on 10.8.1990 by executing three separate sale deeds, one in favour of Smt. Usha Rani Mishra. the wife of the husband of his younger brother. Sunil Kumar Mishra : the second to Rajiv Prakash. respondent No. 2 and the third to Mrs. Neeta Awasthi. The dispute in the pres...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »