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.
Rama Shanker Srivastava Vs. Smt. Usha Bala Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2847
A.K. Yog, J.1. This is adefendant's second appeal arising out of the original Suit No. 30 of 1994 (Smt. Usha Bala. Srivastava v. Rama Shanker Srivastava) for seeking relief of decree for specific performance to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated December 28, 1992. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 30.3.1998 directed the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months on accepting the balance sale amount of Rs. 14,600 and in case defendant fails to execute the sale deed and getting the sale deed registered, the same shall be executed by the Court at the Instance of the plaintiff and possession wilt be delivered accordingly. A perusal of the trial court's judgment indicates that the defendant did not co-operate and made all possible efforts to ensure that the hearing of the suit is delayed. Trial court had finally proceeded for hearing of the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Against the order directing the case to ...
Ramraj Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC430(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated January 29, 2000, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, Bench II, Meerut, in Appeal Nos. 93 of 1999, 94 of 1999 and 96 of 1999 relating to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1992-93 the assessee-applicant has filed these three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present revisions are as follows :The applicant is a registered dealer and runs a rice mill. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rice. The applicant holds a recognition certificate under Section 4-B(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948--hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It had made purchase of paddy directly from the farmers without issuing any form III-B to them as also from the wholesalers against form III-B without payment of any tax on its purchases. The rice manufactured by the applicant out of paddy so purchased has been sold by the applicant in the State of U.P., in...
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]124STC602(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of phosphatic fertilisers and allied chemicals, and it is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is selling phosphatic fertilisers within the State of U.P. and composition of the same is N.P.K. 23:23:0 (the letters N.P.K. standing for nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) respectively.3. A notification dated November 2, 1994, annexure No. 4 to the writ petition was issued by the State Government under Section 4(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, exempting potassic and phosphatic fertilisers till March 31, 1995. However, subsequently a notification dated April 10, 1995, vide annexure 5 to the writ petition, was issued superseding the earlier notification da...
Prem Singh Vs. Engineer-in-chief, P.W.D., Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2770; [2000(87)FLR278]
A. K. Yog, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.2.1995 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in petitioner's functioning as work-agent till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation and to pay him regular salary month by month and other allowances also.2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 1995. The respondents were granted time to file a counter-affidavit and the petitioner to file rejoinder-affidavit. No counter-affidavit has been filed. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.7.1995. Petitioner filed a restoration application which was allowed by the Court on 12.5.1997, i.e., after about twenty two months i.e., more than one and half year.3. Learned counsel for thepetitioner stated that petitioner was not allowed to work and paid salary after February, 1995.4. In brief, th...
Kishan Lal Vs. Mehndi Hasan and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC139; 2001ACJ332; 2000(4)AWC2801
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This first appeal from order has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.12.1983 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal camp at Kotdwara in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 28 of 1976, awarding a sum of Rs. 36,000 with simple interest at the rate of Rs. 9%per annum from the dale of application, i.e.. 11.9.1983 upto the dale of payment.2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent No. 1 filed claim petition against the appellant and respondent No. 2 under Section 110A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation amounting to Rs. 45.000 on account of death of Mohd. Idris, a boy of 17 years old in a motor accident with the allegations that the deceased was a labourer and was working with appellant. He was getting a sum of Rs. 150 per month as his wages. On 6.6.1969 at about 1 p.m. truck No. UPY 4583 owned by appellant and insured with respondent No. 2 was coming from forest to Kotdwara. The...
Shambhu Singh Vs. State Election Commission, U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2001All39
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the declaration of the result of the election held for the office of the Pradhan of village Sheopur Bujurg, tehsit Padrauna, district Kushinagar declaring respondent No. 4 as the elected candidate. The contention ofthe petitioner is that he was originally declared elected. The counting of votes took place on June 28, 2000 and after completion of counting of votes, result was declared which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. When called upon by the Court, the petitioner has also produced certificate issued by the Returning Officer declaring the petitioner as elected candidate in respect of village Sheopur Bujurg, tehsil Padrauna. district Kushinagar. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequent to the declaration of result and issuance of the certificate on the same date, i.e. June 28, 2000, a complaint was lodged by respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, which is slated to be of June 30....
Ratnabh Pati Tripathi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1123
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ Petition is directed against the order of appointment of opposite party No. 5 as Ditrict Government Counsel (Criminal), Gorakhpur (to be hereinafter referred as DGC), vide order dated 22-11-1999 and the order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur, in compliance of the aforesaid Government order. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining oppoisite party No. 5 from functioning as DGC (Criminal), Gorakhpur, and further prayed for a direction for appointment of the petitioner as DGC (Criminal), Gorakhpur. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the oppoiste parties 1 to 4 to do the needful in the interest of the country and the State in the matter of opposite party No. 5, misrepresenting himself to be an Indian citizen by birth. In totality the appointment of opposite party No. 5 has been challenged on the ground of his Nati...
Onkar Tiwari Alias Karia Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4723
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. Both these revisions involve same question for decision and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. I have heard Sri Namwar Singh and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the A.G.A.3. The facts giving rise to these revisions are as follows :The revisionist is an accused in Case Crime No. 165 of 1999 under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria. He was arrested by the police in the above crime and was sent to jail. The applicant moved an application before the Juvenile Judge that he is a juvenile. The Juvenile Judge, Deoria by an order dated 2-11-99 declared the revisionist as ajuvenile. Against that order, State of U. P. preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000, which has been decided by the Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act) Deoria on 14-6-2000 and the order of the Juvenile Judge dated 2-11-99 holding the revisionist as ajuvenile, has been set aside. Aggrieved by the same...
Laxman T. Vs. Som Nath Pandey, General Manager, Ner and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2800; 2000CriLJ4700
D. S. Sinha and Dev Kant Trivcdi, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Laljl Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. By the impugned order dated December 9. 1996, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, the respondent No, 3, has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.3. It cannot be gainsaid that initiation of proceedings of contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemner. No one can insist upon the Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against the alleged contemner. Thus, the insistence on the part of the petitioner for initiation of proceedings for contempt against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the respondent No. 3 is misplaced.4. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly prohibits Courts from initiating any proceedings for contem...
Smt. Shyam Sakhi and Others Vs. State Election Commission, U.P. and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2786; (2000)3UPLBEC2097
Sudhir Narain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the publication of the election programme for holding the election for the post of Kshetra Panchayat published in the newspaper dated 22.7.2000.2. The facts, in brief, are that the programme of elections for Kshetra Panchayat (BDC) was notified to be held in the month of June, 2000 as per the following programme :1.Lastdate for filing of nomination papers.1/2.6.20002.Scrutinyand disposal of objection to the nomination papers.4/5.6.2000 3.Last date for with drawal of nominations.6.6.20004.Publication of final list of the contesting candidates after withdrawal.6.6.2000 The petitioners and certain other persons submitted nomination papers, the details of which havebeen mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this writ petition. It appears that the Assistant Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of certain other candidates and the petitioners were declared as elected from their respective wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »