Allahabad Court February 2002 Judgments
Rajesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2680
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial in special case No. 157 of 1999, under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S.Act before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Varanasi. According to the prosecution case, the applicant was found in possession of 1 Kg. of contraband ganja. The applicant moved an application before the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.Act that the case is triable by the Magistrate and therefore, it may be sent back to the Magistrate for summary trial of the applicant in accordance to the provisions of N.D.P.S.Act as amended by Act No. 9 of 2001 which have been enforced w.e.f. 27-09-2001 and Cr.P.C. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11-02-2002. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred.2. I have heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. I have also perused the provisions of amending Act No. 9 of 2001 which have been enforced from 27-09-2001.3. The original provisions of the N...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Chandra Goyal Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR289(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. By this writ petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated November 22, 1999 (annexure 16), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Tax Recovery), Agra, purported to have been passed under Rule 86(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short called 'the Act of 1961') .2. I heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, as well as Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel, for the respondents.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that for realisation of demand outstanding against the assessee, for the assessment year 1987-88 Rs. 6,10,650, the assessment year 1990-91 Rs. 6,63,506, the assessment year 1991-92 Rs. 17,94,783, the assessment year 1992-93 Rs. 39,002, the TRO-1, Agra (Tax Recovery Officer) auctioned a shop situated in Sanjay Place, Agra, bearing No. 44/2/108 on March 19,1997, for Rs. 2,72,000. Against this auction, the assessee has filed an application to this office on April 1,1997 f...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. Chief Medical Officer, Ballia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1296
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition the prayer has been prayed to quash the order dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure-13).2. Heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents and with the consent of the parties this writ petition is decided finally at this stage.3. Pursuant to U. P, Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (called in short 'Rules 1974' hereinafter), the petitioner was given appointment to Class IV post on account of death of his father. The petitioner was High School only and had appeared in the Intermediate examination at relevant time and has passed the Intermediate subsequently. He claimed that the appointment to the post on which he has been engaged on compassionate grounds was not in consonance to the qualifications he possessed, whereas he was to be posted as Basic Healthworker in Class III category and his representation to that effect was considered by the concerned authori...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kant Dubey Vs. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Etawah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1380; [2002(93)FLR558]; (2002)2UPLBEC1048
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the suspension order dated 28.11.2001 passed by respondent No. 1..3. The petitioner has been working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari. By the said order, he has been placed under suspension on the basis of five allegations made in the order. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's liability is only joint liability. He has referred to paragraph 12 of the writ petition where it has been mentioned that the funds of the Gaon Sabha are to be operated jointly by Gram Pradhan and Secretary, Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that since his liability is joint, he cannot be alone suspended. The second submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension is in violation of Rule 4 of U. P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 1999.4. After having heard the coun...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Devi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2151; (2002)3UPLBEC2261
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 18.3.1996 and 17.1.1996 issued by respondents (Annexures-57 and 56) and further prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondents not to interfere in any manner in providing Basic Training Course of two years through correspondence to the petitioners and direction to the respondents to abide by the said Government orders 6.9.1994 and 21.10.1994. I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioners are appointed by Committee of Management and are working as Assistant Teachers in privately managed respective schools duly recognised by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the provision of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). According to the petitioners, they are in possession of minimum qualific...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Pal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3647
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The petitioners are accused in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2002 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Etah. The petitioners moved an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall PWs. 1 and 4 for further cross-examination.2. It is alleged that by mistake the witnesses could not be cross-examined regarding the place of incident and manner of firing.3. It is also alleged that the petitioners have now engaged another counsel who found that the witnesses have not been cross-examined on material points.4. It is further alleged that in the cross cases for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. the parties have compromised; that in the present case which is for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. the parties have also compromised and therefore, it is necessary to resummon the witnesses for further cross-examination. It was also disclosed by the petitioners that the witnesses have no objection in recalling them for further cross-examination. However, the learned Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Nasim Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2719
ORDER1. Whether a person who, after fastening the legs and mouth of a cow by rope makes it lie on the floor of his courtyard, sits on its neck with a knife of 38 centimeters blade in his hand (and the other person hold its tail) and after reading Kalma about to slaughter it, comes within the mischief of Sections 3 and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the question which requires our answer in this writ petition.2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 20-11-2001 giving rise to registration of Case Crime No. 266 of 2001 P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur under Sections 3/5/8 of the Act as contained in Annexure-1.3. A perusal of the impugned First Information Report shows, inter alia, to this effect:- It has been lodged by Sub Inspector Jagveer Singh Tomar of P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur, who was informed by Mukhbir in regard to slaughter of a cow by the petitioner in his house, he ru...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Chandra Goyal Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN95(All)
ORDERBy this writ petition the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22-11-1999 (Annexure-16) passed by the Commissioner (Tax Recovery), Agra, purported to have been passed under rule 86(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. I heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that for realisation of demand which was outstanding against the assessee; the assessment year 1987-88 Rs. 6,10,650, the assessment year 1990-91 Rs. 6,63,500, the assessment year 1991-92 Rs. 17,94,783, assessment year 1992-93 Rs. 39,002, the Tax Recovery Officer-1, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'the TRO'), auctioned a shop situated in Sanjay Place, Agra, bearing No. 44/2/08 on 19-3-1997 for Rs. 2,72,000. Against this auction the assessee has filed an application to this office on 1-4-1997 for...
Tag this Judgment!Shyampal Singh Vs. Roza Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1199b
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was appointed as clerk in Shahjahanpur Cane Society some time in the year 1959-60. In the year 1973, he was suspended while working as clerk at Roza Cane Society at Shahjahanpur. In the year 1982, he was again Issued a fresh appointment letter provided that he will not have any claim to his past services. It is asserted that on 31.12.2001, he was served with a letter by the District Cane Officer, Shahjahanpur to submit original documents of his educational qualification as well as the date of birth. On 2.1.2002, he was served with an order passed by the Secretary, Roza Sahkarl Ganna Samiti Ltd., Shahjahanpur, retiring him from service w.e.f. 2.1.2002. In the same order, it was stated that according to the letter received from the District Cane Officer, Shahjahanpur, the petitioner's date of birth is 1.5.1939 and that he should have retired on 30.4.1997, and further that the petitioner has been continuing in service...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1294; [2002(94)FLR1216]
R.B. Misra, J. 1. By the writ petition the petitioner seeks direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F. and other consequential benefits. 2. Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri. S. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the State.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that petitioner whose date of birth is 8.3.1937, joined as Collection Amin at Tehsil Itwa, in Basti (and now after bifurcation, district Siddharth Nagar) on 22.4.1963 and worked on different places and after completing 58 years of age he retired on 31st March. 1995. According to him, at the time of retirement, he gave his charge to his senior authorities and deposited the receipt of Revenue on 31.3.1995 as well as all the books and jamabandi which were in his possession (Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition). According to him, his work. conduct was to the satisfaction of the authority concerned : how...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »