Allahabad Court March 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.
Chief Project Officer and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ960All; (2000)3UPLBEC2735
ORDERDev Kant Trivedi, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 439 of 1992, the Chief Project Officer, World Bank and Assistant Engineer, World Bank, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated July 20, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur.2. In Writ Petition No. 7130 of 1992, the petitioner Abdullah who is opposite party No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 439(S/S) of 1992, has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the position assigned to him at Sl.No. 25 in the seniority list and also for a writ of mandamus to absorb the petitioner in the U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd.3. In yet another Writ Petition No. 10019 of 1993, the aforesaid Abdullah petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the U.P. Co-operative Bank to adjust him on a vacant post and to pay him salary as admissible to Class III employees.4. In yet another Writ Petition No. 8079 of 1992, Surya Pal Sirigh has prayed for a writ of mandamus for regularis...
Sita Ram Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)2UPLBEC1216
Bhagwan Din, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the month of July. 1970 in Hari Shanker Pandey Inter College, Lallapur. Allahabad (in short Institution). In the month of June, 1996 by the order dated 28.6.1996 he was placed under suspension by the respondent No. 3, the Principal of the Institution. Against the order of his suspension the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 28.6.1996 be issued.2. During the pendency of the petition, this Court by order dated 26.11.1996 directed that the enquiry proceedings shall not be stopped, if any enquiry is in progress. Before the petition could be disposed of the petitioner was terminated from service by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 26.6.1997. The petitioner, therefore, sought amendment in the petition as below :'Ground No. 9.--Because the impugned termination order dated 26.6.1997 passed by the ...
Babu and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ664
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 15-7-80 passed by Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 1979. All the appellants of these appeals have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They have further been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Babu appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 147 I.P.C. while rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment accused Harish Chandra and Phool Singh have, however, been acquitted.2. Bhag Singh and his all five sons namely Jarnail Singh, Laxman Singh, Karnail Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Sarjeet Singh are appellants before us. Prosecution also alleged that appellant Babu and acquitted accused Phool...
Vishal Industries Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(119)ELT534(All)
P.K. Jain, J.1 Heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ganga Ram Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. A demand of Rs. 3,40,000/- under the Central Excise Act has been raised for the purchases made by the petitioner for the period of August, 1992 to February, 1994 on the ground that old and unserviceable rails purchased by him as waste and scrap from the Railway Department for purposes of rerolling is not shown to be duty paid. The appeal filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was dismissed by the Commissioner Excise and ultimately the petition filed appeal before the Custom Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal in which under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, an application for stay-cum-waiver was moved which has been partly rejected by the Tribunal.3. It is submitted by Shri Mathur that an inference about the goods being not duty paid, has been drawn on the ground that the petitioner has failed to add...
Mahesh NaraIn Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Otehrs
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1404
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Against the impugned order of the Additional Collector which is endorsed on the certificate (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in our opinion the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 11 of the U. P. Excise Act. The Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603 and Assistant Collector v. Dunlop India, AIR 1985 SC 330, has held that in tax matters particularly there should normally be no short-circuiting of the statutory remedies of filing appeal/revision. Hence in view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Excise Commissioner under Section 11 of the U. P. Excise Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constituion. This is also the view taken by this Court inShanker Prasad Jaiswal v. Collector. 1985 UPTC 105.3. It has been held by the Supreme Court in I. T. O. v. Mohammed Kunhi, ...
Head Constable C.P. 28 Shiv Mohan Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1544; [2000(85)FLR403]; (2000)2UPLBEC1522
ORDERV.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioners were initially appointed as constables under the U. P. Police Regulation read with Police Act, 1861. The petitioners have been promoted as Head Constables. The next promotion post of Head Constables is Sub-Inspector. The petitioners claim that a Government Order was issued on 6.8.1995 which provided that 50 per cent vacancies be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50 per cent were to be filled by promotion. Out of this 50 per cent which was reserved for rankers 25 per cent vacancies were to be filled in accordance with seniority subject to rejection of unfit and the remaining 25 per cent vacancies were to be filled by departmental examination. The respondents Issued an office memorandum dated 19.5.1998 which provided that 50 per cent vacancies will be filled from the constables and head constables through departmental examination. It is the validity of this order which is under challenge in this petition.2. I have heard Sri C. B. Yadav, ...
Hari Nath Singh Yadav Vs. Administrator/Chairman, Provincial Co-operat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1534; [2000(85)FLR345]; (2000)IILLJ295All; (2000)2UPLBEC1093
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 8.6.1999 Annexure-27 to the writ petition by which his service had been terminated and recovery has been ordered against him. The petitioner was an employee of the U. P. Cooperative Federation having been appointed on 21.12.1966 as Assistant Accountant and thereafter he was promoted In June. 1981 as Superintendent. In 1989 he was posted as District Manager of the Federation at Etah when he was suspended but the suspension order was stayed by the High Court on 7.5.1990 as stated in paragraph 5 ofthe writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held and his service was terminated. Hence, this petition.3. Several grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this petition but it is not necessary for us to go into all of them as we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed on one ground alone.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court In ...
Mahadeo Vs. Rahamatullah and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1405
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed agafnst the order dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 1 and the order of the appellate authority dated 14.5.1999 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that his family consists of 21 members and he requires the disputed accommodation for residential purposes. He is residing on the first floor of House No. 24/133 situate in Mohalla Khwajpura, Varanasi. which is hardly sufficient for 21 members of his family. The petitioner contested the application alleging that the landord has sufficient accommodation in House No. 24/133. The Prescribed Authority, on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the conclusion t...
Sri Nanhey Khan Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Farrukhabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1528
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the decree for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages passed against him by the courts below.2. The plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed S.S.C. Suit No. 115 of 1990 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioner was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 100 and Rs. 30 per month as electric charges. He had not paid rent for the period 1.9.1979 to 30.6.1980 amounting to Rs. 1,000 and electric charges amounting to Rs. 300. He sent a notice dated 9.7.1980 demanding this amount which was served on him on 11.7.1980 but inspite of service of notice he did not pay the amount. The petitioner denied the averments made in the plaint. His case was that the rent was Rs. 100 per month inclusive of electric charges. He had sent a money order on 14.7.1980 for a sum of Rs. 1.000 but It was refused by the plaintiff, Prem Chandra. The trial court decreed the suit on 17.1...
Arun Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR492(All); [2000]112TAXMAN357(All)
P. K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite party. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated December 31, 1999, and prays for quashing the same on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has wrongly held that the revision was not maintainable.3. The brief facts appear to be that against the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 249 of the Income-tax Act. He had not deposited the income-tax due on the income returned by him. Feeling that the appeal shall not be admitted in view of the provisions contained in Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, he withdrew the appeal and thereafter filed revision under Section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner dismissed the said revision being not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 264(4)(a) of the Act.4. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »