Allahabad Court August 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.
Arvind Kumar Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(130)ELT732(All)
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has come up for quashing of the order of the Custom Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Northern Bench, New Delhi (respondent No. 1) dated 15-5-2000 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition). Whereby the application under Section 129E of the Customs Act for waiver of pre-deposit penalty of the petitioner in both the appeals No. dated 10-11-2000 has been disposed of. Heard Shri S.C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned Additional Standing Counsel, Government of India for the opposite parties. Both of them agreed that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.2. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage as per rule of the Court.3. It appears that a proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Cu...
Mohd. ZahooruddIn Vs. U.P. Sarkar Sarak Parivahan Nigam, Lucknow and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001LabIC1373
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexures-4 and 6, whereby the petitioner's date of birth was approved to be as 8.6.1935 and accordingly, he was directed to superannuate on 30.6.1993, i.e., the last date of the month in that year. Another writ of mandamus has been prayed for commanding the opposite parties to accept the 8th July, 1937 as the petitioner's genuine date of birth and accordingly continue him in service until 31.7.1995.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on July 22, 1954 by the Assistant General Manager, Moradabad. He earned applause and appreciation from his superior authorities and during the course of his career, he was promoted first as Assistant Booking Clerk and later as Booking Clerk. With the incentives of promotions one after the other, hefurther accelerated in his job as a result of which he was appointed as Traffic Inspector (Third Category) and someti...
Devendra Nath Misra Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC266; (2001)2UPLBEC1835
Bhanwar Singh, J.1. Sri Devendra Nath Misra has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.10.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), opposite party No. 4 and for another writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 4 to accord financial approval and make payment of the petitioner's salary in the lecturer's grade with effect from 1.7.1994.2. According to the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in Shri Satya Narain Tewari Vidya Mandir Inter College, Nigohan, Lucknow. He is a well-qualified teacher having done post-graduation in four subjects, namely, Mathematics, Economics, Ancient Indian History and M.Ed. There are six recognised subjects for imparting education to the Intermediate students. However, the financial approval subsists only for two posts of lecturers in the subjects of Geography and P...
Gyan Chandra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2672
R.D. Mathur, J.1. An order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) was passed against the petitioner on July 2, 2000 by the District Magistrate, Gonda. Before order could be executed, the present writ petition was filed on July 19. 2000. praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the impugned order dated July 2, 2000 and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order.2. A copy of the grounds of detention has been filed along with writ petition. The ground of detention mentions about one criminal case in which the petitioner was involved. It is alleged that on May 20, 2000, the petitioner along with his companions went to the shop of Ready-made Garments of Dinesh Chandra Gupta in Mohalla Gola Bazar, Kasba Nawabganj and took 9 sets of cloths from there. When Dinesh Chandra Gupta demanded price, the petitioner...
Ram Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2796
M. Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Kunwar Saksena learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, additional chief standing counsel and Sri R. D. Gupta learned standing counsel.2. Writ Petition No. 485 of 2000 had been filed initially for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the truck Nos. M.P. 09KA/2467, M. P. 06/8045 and M. P. 09/1589 which were lying in the custody of respondents since January 3 and 5. 2000 respectively.3. In this petition, we had passed an order on 24.5.2000 for releasing of the aforesaid trucks on the petitioners' furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of the interim order the aforesaid, trucks have been released in favour of the petitioners.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has cla...
Raghubeer Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ365
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. Sri A.K. Shukla.2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 31-1-1997 passed by Sri Nalin Mohan Lal IV Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, in S.T. No. 28 of 1992 convicting the appellant under Section 19 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine the appellant is further to undergo R.I. for two years.3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the Register of Lambardar the appellant had extracted 2 Kgs. of opium within five days commencing from 24-3-1986 to 28- 3-1986. On 4-4-1986 when the initial weightment in accordance with Rule 14 was made it was found to be 2 Kgs. When on 24- 4-1986 it was weighed again at the Government Centre it was found to be only 550 gms. In this manner the appellant was charged for embezzlement of 1.4...
Sanjai Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2100
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal was filed by the appellant Sanjay Kumar against his conviction Under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and consequent sentence of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to under go further imprisonment for 2 years.2. Brief facts of the case are that Excise Inspector Sri S.K. Mishra was on a routine check of the excise shops in Mohalla Moosa Nagar circle alongwith the members of his staff Constable Vishambhar Nath Upadhyay, Sheo Charan, Brijpal Singh, Prem Singh and Shiv Kumar Tiwari. At about 12.00 in the noon he learnt from an informer that in Moosa Nagar Mohalla Charas and opium are freely sold. On receiving the abovesaid information he has prepared its memo Ex. Ka-1. After preparing the memo he proceeded to the spot and reached the shop of the appellant. He picked up three persons from amongst the public present in front of the shop as public witnesses. After disclosing his crede...
Overseas Paints Linkers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT42(All)
ORDER1. Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Rai learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized goods which were seized from the possession of the petitioner on 4-11-1996.3. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 110(2) of 'the Customs Act, 1962' the seized goods have to be released in favour of the person from whose possession the goods were seized. Section 110(2) of the said Act reads as follows :'Where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they are seized.PROVIDED that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not ex...
Ram Autar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2923; [2000(87)FLR160]; (2001)ILLJ276All
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Vijai Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Tripathi, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1. 2, 3 and 6.2. On being found guilty of the charges of abusing and misbehaving with his superior officers under the influence of liquor, the petitioner, an erstwhile constable of U. P. Police, was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 17th May, 1988, a copy whereof is Annexurc-5 to the writ petition.3. The dismissal order dated 17th May, 1988, was challenged by the petitioner by filing a claim petition before the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which has been dismissed by the order and judgment dated 3rd March, 1997, a copy whereof is appended to the petition as Annexure-6, impugned in this petition.4. The grounds of challenge to the dismissal order before the Tribunal were and before this Court are that the order was passed without following due procedure of law ; tha...
Vinay Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ136
M.C. Jain, J.1. The company in question, M/s. Srishti Video Corporation Limited, was ordered to be wound up by order dated August 16, 1999, in this case. There were four other winding up petitions against the same company made by the following concerns :(i) Raunaq Finance Ltd.-Company Petition No. 20 of 1998. (ii) Times Guarantee Finance Ltd.--Company Petition No. 111 of 1997. (iii) Magma Leasing Ltd.--Company Petition No. 1 of 1997. (iv) J. G. Finance Ltd.-Company Petition No. 38 of 1997. There were certain secured creditors also, namely, IIBI, PICUP and Syndicate Bank. 2. A-26 is an application by the company in question through Vinay Kumar Jain, promoter and the erstwhile managing director of the company with two other applicants, namely, Raj Kumar Jain and Ramesh Kumar Jain, with the prayer that the winding up order dated August 16, 1999, be recalled. The application is supported by the affidavit of Vinay Kumar Jain the promoter and erstwhile managing director of the company. In sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »