Allahabad Court July 2001 Judgments
Raju Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ124
ORDERR.B. Misra, J. 1. The above mentioned Criminal Misc, Application, Writ Petition and Criminal Misc. Revision involve the common question relating to the order of learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the applications for release of cattle alleged to have been involved under Sections 3/5-A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/applicants, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Anil Kumar Singh as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. The date of incident, case crime number, Police station in respect of the criminal case number, date of impugned orders passed by the respective Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge are given herein as under :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case No. Date of Case Crime Police Station Dt. of im- Name of the incident No. Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yadu Raj NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR326(All)
1. This application has been filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has prayed for a direction to the Income-tax Tribunal to draw up the statement of the case and to refer the following question of law for the opinion to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) on the basis that the computation of penalty under Section 271(1)(ii) could not be made in this case, ignoring the fact that the return filed by the assessee on July 28, 1986, though invalid showing total loss of Rs. 390 and agricultural income at Rs. 10,000 could be taken into consideration for computing the amount of penalty leviable under Section 271(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite service of notic...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4789
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 7-7-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Banda (Fast Track Court) in Session trial No. 63/1997 whereby the present applicants have been summoned as accused persons to face their trial alongwith the accused who is already before the Court. This order has been passed in exercise of powers conferred on the Sessions Judge under Section 319 Cr. P.C.3. It has been submitted by the aplicants counsel that the applicants were nominated in the First Information Report but the investigating officer found no case against them and thus submitted charge sheet only against the husband of deceased. However after the statement of P.W.1 was recorded during trial, an application was moved for summoning the present applicants as accused because P.W.1 in his statement on oath has clearly stated facts leading to the 'dowry death' of the deceased and also named the present applicants.4. It has been submitted by learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2002LabIC149; (2001)3UPLBEC2231
S.R. Singh and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Both these petitions were taken up together by the consent of the parties counsel with a view to disposing them of by a common order. Writ Petition No. 18683 of 2001 seeks quashing of an order whereby a fact-finding inquiry committee has been constituted to inquire and report about allegations contained in the complaint made by one Chaudhary Yashwant Singh, General Secretary. Yuva Janta Dal. Uttar Pradesh, in his letter dated 9.1.2001 addressed to the Chief Minister with a copy endorsed to the concerned Minister arrayed herein as one of the respondents besides the allegations contained in the complaint of Sri Devi Singh and others addressed to the concerned Minister. The complaints are against the petitioner and other officers of the district including the District Magistrate. In Writ Petition No. 23896 of 2001, a direction has been given to Commissioner and Administrator, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow. to transfer the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Goel Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2230
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery. No illegality has been pointed out and hence, we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court should fix instalments.3. In our opinion the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot fix instalments as the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere only when there is error of law apparent on the face of record. Simply for fixing instalments, no writcan be issued. Fixing instalments means rescheduling of the loan and this can only be done by the Bank or the Financial institution, which granted the loan. The High Court under Article 226 cannot reschedule the loan. The writ petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Lallan Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR910]; 2002LabIC265; (2001)3UPLBEC2428
S.R. Singh and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer presently posted at Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur, seeks issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.6.2001 being Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby he has been placed under suspension on a charge which relates to his duties while he was posted at Allahabad Development Authority. Allahabad.2. It has been submitted by Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the charge against the petitioner is that he failed to take effective steps in arresting unauthorised constructions in residential scheme of Allahabad Development Authority in Jhusi and was remiss in discharge of his duty but mere failure on the part of the petitioner to take effective steps in preventing the unauthorised constructions and mere carelessness in discharge of duties do not constitute 'misconduct' warranting disciplinary action. Shri Sharma has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kushum Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2374; [2001(90)FLR1133]; (2001)3UPLBEC2431
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. This, writ petition is being heard finally and decided under the Rules of the Court as also agreed by the counsels for the parties.3. Photo-copies of the certified copies of the papers relating to Original Suit No. 89 of 2000, Smt. Kushum Devi v. Arun Kumar Sen, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, show that the petitioner, who is daughter of late Bhagwat Prasad, was married to one Arun Kumar Sen and the said marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17.12.2000 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has remarried.4. Father of the petitioner Bhagwat Prasad, employed in the respondent's office at Jhansi, died on 11.11.1999 leaving behind his widow who submitted an application on 18.1.2001 for giving compassionate appointment to her daughter, the present petitioner (Annexure-1 to the writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ali Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Moradabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2561
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard Sri R. D. Singh, holding brief of Sri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Perused the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.3. From the perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent on face of record that petitioner has filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 before respondent No. 2 in which contesting respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The aforesaid suit was dismissed indefault on 8.2.1994 and also on 11.1.1996. The aforesaid dismissal in default orders were set aside by the learned trial court on showing sufficient cause by the petitioner which prevented him to remain present when the case was called on for hearing. It is evident that the present suit was again dismissed in default on 18.3.1999 and a restoration application was moved by the petitioner within five days, i.e., on 23.3.1999. The aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Survesh Chand Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2426
D.R. Chaudhary, J.1. The petitioner herein, was posted as Chief Pharmacist in C.M.S.D. Store, District Hospital, Azamgarh under Chief Medical Officer (in short C.M.O.), Azamgarh. He was transferred to Ballia by means of the order dated 23.9.2000 and by another order dated 26.9.2000 the respondent No. 6 was accommodated by transferring him on the post on which the petitioner was working. The two orders aforementioned are under challenge in the present writ petition.2. Earlier to the impugned transfer order dated 23.9.2000 the petitioner was subjected to transfer from Azamgarh to Gorakhpur by means of the order dated 22.4.1999 which the petitioner challenged in writ petition No. 20903 of 1999 inter alia on the ground that the order impugned therein was passed under political pressure to accommodate one Sri H.N. Singh (respondent No. 6). This Court passed the interim order dated 20.5.1999 staying the operation of the transfer order dated 22.4.1999. The respondents in vindication of their ...
Tag this Judgment!Rang Nath Rai Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2116
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and R. P. Misra, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the notice dated 2.6.2001 issued by Tata Finance Ltd. having its registered office in Mumbai and to release his vehicle which is in its custody besides restraining it from realising seizure charges of the vehicle.2. Having perused the pleadings.we asked Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to how respondent No. 2 is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or discharging any statutory function, Sri Rai couldnot give any valid answer.3. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »