Allahabad Court December 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.
indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC272b
M. Katju and Yatindra Singh, J J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The validity of additional tax has been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001, Smt. Vidya Gupta v. State of V. P. decided on 10.9.2002. We, therefore, cannot interfere in the matter. We are further of the opinion that this Court has no power to fix instalments under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ lies where there is error of law apparent on the face of the record and it does ' not lie for fixing instalments. As regards the request to fix instalments, the petitioner should approach the department concerned and it is in the discretion of the department to fix instalments or not. This Court cannot give any direction in this connection.3. The petition is dismissed....
Smt. Hasina Bibi and ors. Vs. Vith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC230
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners, who were the opposite parties before the revisional court, have challenged the order passed by the revisional court dated 13.11.1997, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the revisionist permitting the execution of the compromise decree, which has been arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the revision before the revisional court.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that petitioners-landlord filed Suit No. 642 of 1977 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No. 3, (defendant in the suit). The aforesaid suit was decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment on 22.9.1982 by the Small Causes Court, Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree dated 22.9.1982, revisionist-respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 715 of 1982 before the revisional c...
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC507; [2003(96)FLR419]
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-employer challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal (4) U. P., Agra, dated 4th April, 1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 249 of 1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the award, a perusal whereof demonstrates that the following was the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal (4), U. P. Agra, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), for adjudication :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh vjfoUn dqekj 'kekZ iq= Jh cks/k izdk'k 'kekZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 7-8-1995 lslekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS A;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkkfdl vU; fooj.k lfgr** 3. The Tribunal has recorded afinding that on receipt of thereference, a case was registered andnotices were sent to the parties byregistered post. On the...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Ishwari Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC687
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia (Appellate Authority) and the judgment and order dated 9.11.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Prescribed Authority, West, Ballia. 2. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Kasba Rasra, Mohalla Uttar Patti Dak Bangla Road, Pargana Laksheshwar, district Ballia. The said shop has hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed shop.' 3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that Smt. Parwati Devi predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. 4. It was, infer alia, stated ...
Triveni Structurals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2235; [2003(96)FLR642]; (2003)1UPLBEC644
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner-employer M/s. Triveni Structural Limited approached this Court by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1.9.1999, Annexure-2 to this writ petition, whereby the Industrial Tribunal (I), Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has rejected the application filed by the petitioner-employer dated 17.5.1999, copy of which is attached as Annexure-5 to this writ petition and refused to set aside the ex parte award dated 25.9.1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1998. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-workman was appointed on 13.1.1994, according to the case set up by the petitioner-employer in the present writ petition, on daily rate as casual worker. Thereafter he was appointed on different dates and lastly he was appointed, according to the petitioner, from the period from 13.11.1995 till 20.1...
Shiv Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1107
M. C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 14-1-2002 passed against him by respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Mau under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The first ground is that on 13-4-1995 at about 7.45 p.m. he with his associate Ranvir Singh alias Guddu had fired on one Kamla Kant, though he had escaped unhurt. Crime No. 34 of 1995 under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered at Police, Station Ranipur, District Mau in which chargesheet had been submitted. He had secured bail in that case. That incident had disturbed the public order. People had to run helter-skelter and an atmosphere of terror and insecurity was created in the area.3. The second ground is that on 5-1-2002 at about 3 p.m. in Rainipur he assaulted his tenant Muvattar Raza at his clinic under his tenancy, though in respect of the tenancy a case was also pendin...
Pahalwan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC518
K.N. Sinha, J.1. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Appeal Under Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The brief history of the case is that the revisionist was challaned Under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C and moved an application for bail before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat, which was rejected and thereafter an application for bail was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. This application was converted into an appeal and was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Kanpur Dehat, who found that the revisionist, on the basis of the school leaving certificates, is entitled to get the benefits of the provisions of the said Act but dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation directing the C.J.M. to dispose of the application for bail, if moved a fresh in the light of the observations made in the j...
Cit Vs. Jai Prakash Associates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN610(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.This is a reference application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which two following questions have been referred to use for our opinion :'1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax did not lawfully assumed jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was an industrial udertaking and was, therefore, entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the construction of tunnels, bridges, roads, etc. The relevant assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The controversy in this case is whether assessee is entitled to the benefit of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case as covered...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ved Prakash Sagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC40
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant.The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the Award of an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the untimely death of Atish Kumar @ Guddu, aged about 20 years, son of the claimants in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle-a Chetak Scooter No. U.P.-25D/4069, insured with the present appellant.2. According to the claimants the deceased had met with the accident on 13.3.1998 at 6 p.m. with the aforesaid scooter. He was a cycle mechanic and his total income was of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The deceased succumbed to his injuries the next day at 9 p.m. in the night.3. It was not denied that the accident was caused by the scooter owned by Sabir Hussain, opposite party No. 3 and that the scooter was insured with the United India Insurance Company. At the time of accident the scooter was not driven by Sabir Hussain but by one Rajesh who was not holding the valid driving licence.4...
Shiv Nath Prasad Khandelwal Vs. Ram Kumar, District Magistrate and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC270; 2003CriLJ1853; (2003)1UPLBEC354
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri M. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.2. In this case, on 27.2.1993 an order was passed by Munsif, district Mau directing the opposite parties to maintain status-quo of picture hall, Krishna Chitra Mandir. It is alleged that the order has been violated and the District Magistrate on 20.6.2002, has directed for repair in the said hall and also permitted Sri Chandrama Prasad to enter into the hall. Therefore, the application for contempt has been filed against the opposite parties.3. The learned counsel in support of the arguments has referred to the decision of Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Anr., AIR 1991 Mad 323. It was held that in case of disobedience of injunction order besides the remedy provided under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., High Court can also exercise the powers under Articles 215 and 323 of the Constitution...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »