Allahabad Court February 2002 Judgments
Pintu and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2241
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The applicants are accused in S.T.No. 1302 of 1999 State v. Pintu and another, under Section 376 I.P.C. pending in the Court of XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. In the case, the statements of the applicants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25-7-2001. One of the questions, which was question No. 10, put to the applicants was whether they want to adduce evidence in defence. The reply given to this question by the applicants was in negative.2. Thereafter, the applicants moved an application that the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in the absence of the their counsel; that the reply to question No. 10 in negative has been recorded by mistake; that they want to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence in defence. The request has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 8-01-2002 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, this petition has been preferred.3. I have heard Sri R.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Biri Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD124(All.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(C)" dated 5-1-2001 passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment orders directing the Assessing Officer to complete the re-assessments for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90.2. The brief facts of the case are that there was a search on 29-11-1988 in the premises of the assessee and its directors. Certain material was seized during search and seizure and during the period, proceedings under Section 132(5), 132(11) and 132(12) were conducted by the concerned Income-tax Authorities and ultimately regular assessments were framed under Section 143(3) on dated 30-3-1990. the CIT(C) issued show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act in all the three years on 2-1-1992 and passed the impugned order dated 5-1-2001.The assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(C) dated 5-1-2001 ...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC945
Anjanl Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur and the order dated 7.9.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively, under the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Arms Act. cancelling the licence of his fire-arm.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to show cause as to why his fire arm licence may not be cancelled and in reply thereto, he filed his objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the show Cause notice. The further contention of the petitioner's counsel is that two...
Tag this Judgment!Rayees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1184
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur and 7.9.1999 by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division. Moradabad Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively, under the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act, cancelling the licence of his firearm.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to show cause as to why his fire-arm licence may not be cancelled and in reply thereto, he filed his objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the showcause notice. The further contention of the petitioner's counsel is that two cases under Crime Nos. 174 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pandey, Advocate Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2063; (2002)3UPLBEC2685
Jagdish Bhalla, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.2OOO appointing Sri Anadi Banerjee as Government Advocate for the State of U.P. in the Lucknow Bench of this High Court with a further prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the State Government to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Prime Minister dated 1.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further praying that opposite party No. 4, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, be directed to remove the Law Minister of U.P. and Minister of Rural Development, U.P., opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. He has further prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider for imposition of President Rule in the State of U.P. He has also prayed for quashing of all the illegal appointments made for the post of State Counsel and Notaries done throughout the State in violation of the Rules and norms after calling for a list of the same fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC980
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The appellant filed a suit for injunction forrestraining the respondents from dispossessing him from the disputed premises otherwise than by due process of law. The premises in dispute is first floor portion consisting of two kotharis latrine, etc. of house No. 338 situated at Boora Bazar. Deputy Ganj, Bulandshahr. The appellant claimed that he is tenant of the same since last about 30 years at the rate of Rs. 10 per month.2. The respondents contested the suit and alleged that the appellant is trespasser. Both the Courts below have held that theappellant is trespasser and he is not the tenant of the premises in dispute that he Is illegal occupant. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of injunction. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred.3. I have heard Srt B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Mahmood, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Lady Dr. Nirmal Kushwaha Vs. Kailashnath Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1189
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 250 of 1980 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for eviction from the disputed shop and recovery of damages. In brief, the case of the respondent No. 1 is that he was tenant of two adjoining shops of premises No. 46, Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar on monthly rent of Rs. 315 per month of Sri Prakash Chandra Agarwal. That in one shop, he was carrying on the business of sale of medicines and other articles. That another shop was given by him to the appellant on licence of Rs. 100 per month as licence fee to use it for running the clinic. That the appellant is doctor by profession and running her clinic in the said shop as licensee. That she has not vacated the shop. Therefore, the suit was filed. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by it, the respondent No. 1 preferred Civil Appeal No. 309 of 1983 which has been allowed and suit for eviction of the appellant from the disputed shop and for recovery of damages has be...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: U.P. Cement Corporation Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas562(All)
ORDERSunh Ambwani, J. 1. U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (UPSCCL) was declared as a Sick Industrial Company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 7-10-1992, and IDBI was appointed as the Operating Agency. Cemtech India was appointed by UPSCCL to prepare a techno - viability report which was submitted in July, 1994. As on 31-3-1994, the accumulated losses of UPSCCL were Rs. 319.81 crores as against the share capital and reserves of Rs. 68.29 crores. Company did not submit any rehabilitation proposal or comments on the report submitted by Cemtech and thus BIFR directed the company to submit analternative revival plan to the Operating Agency. The workers were also directed to submit rehabilitation proposal with the help of Tata Consultants within two months indicating the means of finance. No proposal was received by the Board within the time indicated. By the same order of the BIFR dated 28-12-1993, the State Bank of India, Allahabad Bank and IDBI were directe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anara Devi Vs. Judge Family Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC254
R.R. Yadav, J.1.This is an application for enhancing the maintenance allowance to the applicant.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The evidence on record shows that during the year 1990, the husband respondent was getting Rs. 2,300/- as basic pay. The dearness has enhanced since then to a very large extent. The judicial notice of this fact can very well to be taken that the emoluments of the Government employees has enhanced several times and hence the amount of Rs. 500/- awarded is certainly less and we find that the maintenance is to be made atleast double-3. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that awarding of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant Smt. Anara Devi will meet the ends of justice. !4. The application is hereby allowed. The amount of maintenance is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- at which rate the applicant shall get from 15.2.2001, the date of filing of the present applicati...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Katariya Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2220
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. Two appeals have been preferred by three appellants against the judgment and order dated 19-12-97 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Lalitput in S.T.No. 20 of 1993 where by the appellants Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain have been convicted under Sections 323/34, 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months R.I. on each count and appellant J.B. Katariya has been convicted under settion 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 342 I.P.C. for 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Third appeal is filed by the State against acquittal of J.B. Katariya under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and against acquittal of Ghanashyam Sharma and constable Ram Narain under Section 302 I.P.C. All the appeals arise out of the same judgment, therefore they are decided by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case in short is that complainant's nephew Virendra Singh was doing medical practice in village Sojna. On 6-3-87 at about 2.30 in the night he had some ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »