Allahabad Court November 2002 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.
Syed Takhleekh Haider Zaidi and ors. Vs. NasiruddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All56; 2003(1)AWC359
S.K. Sen, C.J. and S. Rafat Alam, J.1. We have heard Mr. J. J. Munir, learned counsel for the applicants.2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against an order dated 25th September, 2002, whereby the appellate court declined to rehear the appeal on the application made by the applicants under Order XLI Rule 21, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, which was decreed on merit and subsequently, the defendant preferred appeal which was allowed ex parte. The appellate court went into the question of sufficient cause for restoration and held that no sufficient explanation is made out for restoration of the appeal on merit. We are of the view that such an order declining to rehear the appeal is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 (t) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 21 and also Order XLIII Rule 1 (t) of the Civil Procedure Code are set-out hereunder :' Order XLI Rule 21 :Re-hearing on application of responde...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. C.L. Gupta and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(All)530; [2003]259ITR513(All)
S. Rafat Alam, J. 1. This appeal is under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the judgment and order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 11, 1999, in I. T. A. T. No. 6797/D of 1992 whereby the appeal of the Revenue-appellant challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed.2. The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 43B of the Act, the assessee can claim deduction for the sum paid against the customs duty in the previous years. In other words, whether the benefit for the sum paid against the customs duty can be claimed in the subsequent year or the benefit of such deduction can only be allowed in the year in which the actual payment is made.3. The admitted fact, in brief, is that in the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1988-89, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 3,56,541 in March, 1987, being the...
Dr. P.N. Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC453
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of clause 3 of Government order dated 19.11.1999, which imposes a restriction upon the teachers of degree colleges to teach post-graduate classes. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to permit all such teachers who are duly qualified to teach post-graduate classes.2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is reader in Department of Political Science in B. B. Degree College, Kosikalan, district Mathura, which is an aided institution. The State Government issued a Government order on 11.11.1997, laying down the teaching norms and fee structure for institutions providing higher education in Self Financing Scheme. Another Government order was issued on 19.11.1999, whereby degree colleges receiving grant-in-aid were permitted to start post-graduate classes in the evening under Self Financing ...
Director, Mandi Parishad and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC596
S. Rafat Alam, J. 1. This is a special appeal under the Rules of the Court arising out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.5.1996 in Writ Petition No. 23803 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge held that the respondents-appellants are under duly to give employment to the members of such families whose land is acquired, irrespective of the fact whether post is available or not and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-appellants to provide employment to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 within two weeks from the date certified copy of the order is served upon them.2. It appears that the land bearing Plot No. 421 having an area of one bigha belonging to the father of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was acquired in the year 1988. His father, therefore, made a representation on 10.8.1988 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) before the Deputy Director (Administration), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Allahabad (appellant No. 3) stating that his agricultural...
Mumtaz Ahmad and Etc. Vs. Pakeeza Chemicals and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All114; 2003(26)PTC567(All)
1. These First Appeals From Order have been preferred against the order dated 8-5-2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Ballia in Original Suit No. 1 of 2002, allowing the application of the plaintiff/respondent and issuing ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using trade mark 'Pakeeza' on the product of indigo.2. Respondent No. 1, hereinafter called the plaintiff filed suit No. 1 of 2002 against the appellants and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 hereinafter called the defendants, for permanent injunction, restraining them from using trade mark 'Pakeeza' on their product of indigo with the allegations that it was doing business of indigo by producing ultra mine blue indigo and was using trade mark 'Pakeeza Ultra Mine Blue' which it got registered under Copyright Act under registration No. A57022/1999, dated 3-11-1999 and was using the said trade mark since June, 1993. In the last week of August, 2001 the plaintiff came across the infringing of its good bearing...
Vani Pati Tripathi Vs. Director General, Medical Education and Trainin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All164; (2003)1UPLBEC427
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastav learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastav learned counsel appearing for respondents.2. This Special appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 30-4-2002 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17570 of 2002 by which writ petition filed by appellant has been dismissed.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are Combined Premedical Test (CPMT 2001) has been held by Lucknow University, in accordance with the order of the State Government dated 5-5-2001, CPMT 2001 contemplated holding of a common entrance test for several medical course including MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS and BUMS, petitioner applied for appearing in CPMT 2001 and admit card was issued to the writ petitioner bearing roll number 206418. The writ petitioner appeared in the combined entrance test and obtained an overall rank of 18233. He appeared on 17-4-2002 before the Counselling Board where it was found that he did n...
Ved Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2080
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23-8-2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2002 and order dated 17-4-2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Deoband district Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 346 of 2002.2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly put are that Shiv Kumar, opposite party No. 2 lodged a report on 10-1-2001 at P. S. Deoband, district Saharanpur against the applicant and six other persons with the allegations that on 10-1-2001 at about 9 a.m. he came out of his house for sending his son Rajan to school and observed that the applicant and other co-accused armed with country made pistols and lathi dandas came to his house and observing him they fired on him by guns and country made pistol. However, he was saved and did not sustain injuries, but his son Rajan sustained pellet injuries. Hearing sound of firing ...
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC496
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Counsel, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastave, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Sidhartha, Sri P.R. Mauiya, Sri V.S. Sinha, Advocates, appearing for the appellants and Sri P.S. Baghel, Sri Maneesh Goyal, Advocates and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.2. In all these appeals, the question regarding maintainability of appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been raised. A preliminary objection has been raised by respondents regarding maintainability of the appeal.3. We have heard Counsel for both the parties on the question of maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and by this common order we arc deciding the question of maintainability along.4. Special Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 is being treated as leading case and facts of that case are being noted in some detail for appreciating the arguments raised by...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2125
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer appellant. The insurer appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation to the claimants on account of the untimely death of their daughter Ranjana aged about 8 years in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle.2. Learned counsel for the insurer appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.3. In this connection, suffice it to say that there is nothing to indicate that the insurer appellant had obtained the requisite permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in that view of the matter, it can only raise the statutory defences available to it under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Even otherwise, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co....
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2044
S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer appellant. The insurer appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation to the claimants on account of the untimely death of their daughter Nikki aged about 7 years in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle.2. The learned Counsel for the insurer appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.3. In this connection, suffice it to say that there is nothing to indicate that the insurer appellant had obtained the requisite permission envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in that view of the matter, it can only raise the statutory defences available to it under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Even otherwise, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »