Allahabad Court February 2001 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.
Sanjeev Kumar Gangwar Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermed ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC878; (2001)1UPLBEC848
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a student who has failed in class XI examination can appear next year in class XII Intermediate Examination?2. Both the petitioners were regular students of A.S.N.I. College, Gopalpur Azizpur, Bareilly (in brief institution). They passed High School Examination in 1998. They studied in class XI as regular student for the session 1998-99 in Group 'Cha' 'Krishi Varg'. They could not get through and failed in class XI in the home examination, 1999. Next year, they appeared in Intermediate Examination, 2000, correspondence course under the Correspondence Education Scheme as private candidates with subjects Literary Hindi, Economics. Sociology and Wood Craft. They were declared to have passed in second division. By letter dated 18.7.2000, the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P., Bareilly, directed the petitioners to deposit their original mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2...
Net Singh Vs. Labour Secretary, U.P. Shasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)1UPLBEC757
Yatindra Singh, J.1. No decision is approved for reporting (AFR) unless it decides an important question of law. However, this decision does not decide any question of law, much less an important question of law, it is merely an interim order. Then, why have I marked it AFR? Let me clarify, I have marked it AFR to emphasise :(i) Court management, and(ii) Good administration.2. Edison.-Yet to find suitable filament for incandescent bulb-was asked by his friends if he hadn't failed in his many attempts. 'No; he answered. 'I have found out what will not make good filament'. Well, the controversy involved in these cases and the course charted by it in this Court tells us about Court management and good administration-how these two may not be practised.THE FACTS3. The petitioners in these writ petitions were adhoc, or muster roll, or temporary, or work charge, or daily wage employees, of the Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow (the Parishad) or the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti of di...
Reagal Hospital Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(130)ELT415(All)
1. The petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 13-11-2000 (Annexure 26 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 Director General, Directorate General of Health Services (M.G. Section), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi withdrawing customs duty exemption certificate and the notice dated 16-9-2000 (Annexure 27 to the writ petition) issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Custom House, New Delhi, respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner is a registered company. It has established a hospital in Kanpur. The Central Government issued Notification No. 64 of 1998 under Section 25 of the Customs Act granting exemption in customs duty on import of Hospital equipments and accessories on fulfilling certain terms and conditions. The petitioner applied for grant of such exemption. The petitioner was granted exemption on certain conditions being satisfied Respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner on 15-5-2000 that a team of officers of the Directorate is to inspect the hospital...
Gaya Prasad Upadhayay Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All136; (2001)2UPLBEC1096
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the order dated 8-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, awarding contract of collection of toll over Kara pantoon bridge/ferry over river Ganga in District Pratapgarh to Vinod Kumar Pandey, respondent No. 4 may be quahsed. 2. The main ground on which the contract awarded to respondent No. 4 has been assailed is that the same was done, without any advertisement and without inviting any tender, and on the basis of the private negotiations. The facts averred in the writ petition are not clear and are confusing. The complete facts have been given in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit sworn by Vinod Kumar Singhal, Assistant Engineer. Construction Division, Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the PWD). Pratapgarh, which have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since these are the only affidavits filed on behalf of the S...
Hari Shanker Mishra Vs. Vice-chairman, Kanpur Development Authority an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All139
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Kanpur Development Authority to give possession of plot No. 32, block O, Govind Nagar Scheme I, to the petitioner in pursuance of deed of exchange executed on 25-2-1999. 2. The case of the petitioner is that prior to enforcement of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the development of building sites in Kanpur was done by Kanpur Development Board, which had been constituted under U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The Kanpur Development Board acquired land, and after developing the same let out plots on long-term lease. The petitioner claims that plot No. 47-B, Block J. Govind Nagar, was allotted to him though the date of allotment is not mentioned, and according to the terms and conditions of the allotment, he deposited one-fourth of the cost of the plot forthwith and the remaining three fourth was to be paid in instalments. Howeve...
Durgi Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2522
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This criminal appeal was filed by Durgi Singh, Latoori Singh, Suraj Singh, Sohan Singh and Arjun Singh against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment and R.I. for 6 months respectively under the above two counts. Latoori Singh, appellant No. 2 and Suraj Singh, appellant No. 3, were further sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 147, I.P.C. as both of them were armed with Lathis. Appellant Sohan Singh and Arjun Singh were further convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. All the sentences of all the above said appellants were to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that deceased Shubrati and appellant Durgi Singh and their fields contiguously situate in village Karanpur, district Rampur. The fields of appellant Durgi Singh were adjacently posted towards West and South to the fields of the deceased. The...
Ravi B. Jadeja and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2892
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate, as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.2. A complaint was filed with the allegations that the complainant firm was duped by the applicants. They were induced initially to supply them Sesame Seeds. Pursuant to the inducement the complainant had sent 17 truckloads of Sesame Seeds to the designated place in Gujarat where they were received by an officer of the ITC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Company.).3. From a perusal of the various correspondences that are appended to this application it is very clear that the payment of price is not in dispute. What is apparently, in dispute is giving of 'H' Forms. The applicants by their letter dated 21-10-1994 had intimated to the complainant and his firm that 'H' Forms against their supplies are ready. They required the complainant to collect them personally. The requisite 'H' Forms were pertaining to Pannalal Rajk...
Pramod Alias Billa and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2079
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 2717 of 1980 was filed by Pramod alias Billa and Vilas Deo and Criminal Appeal No. 2769 of 1980 was filed by Hari Kishan alias Haria and Vijay Vishnet. Both these appeals arise out of an order of conviction passed by Sri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun on 24-11-1980 in Session Trial No. 50 of 1980. All the above appellants were convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life under the above count.2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, two of the appellants were reported dead. The report to this effect is on record. We have already abated their appeals on 12-1-2000 by a separate order on the order-sheet. These two appellants are Pramod alias Billa, appellant No. 1 in Crl. Appeal No. 2717 of 1980 and Vijay Vishnet, appellant No. 2 in Crl. Appeal No. 1769 of 1980. The remaining appellants are Hari Kishan alias Haria and Bilas Deo whose appeals were heard by us.3. The...
Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN611(All)
ORDERWe have heard Sri R.P. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Govind Krishna, learned advocate and Sri Bharat J. Agarwal, learned senior advocate for the income-tax authorities.2. Pursuant to our order passed on 8-1-2001 Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, the learned senior advocate appealing for income-tax authorities has filed counter affidavit in this case. He submits that he has obtained instructions pursuant to court's order dated 8-1-2001 and he has been instructed to point out that the appellants were not the directors at the relevant time. In that view of the matter the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing that a proceeding be initiated against the appellants appears to be uncalled for and there is no basis for the same. The observations made against the Income Tax Department also appear to us that learned Single Judge has unnecessarily commented on the action of the income-tax authorities and the observations made by the learned Single Judge which are repr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›