Allahabad Court July 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.
Shamsul Islam Vs. 16th Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2468A; 2002CriLJ4564
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This is a petition to quash the orders Annexures-13 and 14 dated 25.11.1999 and 20.3.2002 respectively of the petition passed by A.C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar and Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. 2. I have heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No. 3 and the A.G.A. 3. In this case, it is admitted that there was business transaction between parties and a cheque dated 26.3.1994 for Rs. 1,13.816 was given to O. P. No. 3 by the petitioner and the O. P. No. 4. The cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on 22.8.1984 and, therefore, the complaint was filed under Section 138 , N. I. Act against the petitioner as well as against O. P. No. 4. However, the complaint against O. P. No. 4, who joined in issuing the cheque with the petitioner, have been dismissed and the revision filed against that order has also been dismissed. The said order has become final and the complaint is now proceeding against the petiti...
Raja Ram Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2459; [2002(94)FLR1121]
S.R. Singh, J.1. The petitioner who was appointed Assistant Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (in short the Institute) on 11.11.1983, has questioned the legality of his superannuation at the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.2000 vide impugned order dated July 17, 2000 (copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-11). A perusal of the impugned order would show that the employees including the petitioner, referred to therein, were informed that they would be retiring from the services of the Institute on the dates noted against their names in column 7 as per decision of the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 22.5.2000. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Registrar (Admin. Section) of the Institute.2. Statute 13 (2) of the Indian Institute of Technology Statute, framed under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, prescribes the age of superannuation of a confirmed appointee. It reads as under :'13 (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the ...
Babu Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2620; [2002(94)FLR944]; (2003)ILLJ948All; (2002)3UPLBEC2713
D.R. Chaudhary, J.1. The services of the petitioner, who was an employee in the Collectorate, Etah, have been terminated by means of the order dated 29.5.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The statutory appeal preferred against the termination order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, by his order dated 26.11.1998 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the claim petition challenging the aforesaid two orders also came to be dismissed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow vide its order and judgment dated 24.7.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders by means of the present petition.2. The petitioner, who entered in service on 6.11.1985, was transferred to join as Arms Clerk-II on 1.1.1995. One Shri Hari Singh Rana--a B.S.P. activist, without naming anybody, made a general complaint to the District Magistrate, Etah, alleging irregularities in issuing Arms Licences. In preliminary enquiries conducted by C.O. ...
Bundu Khan Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2641
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1989, passed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 15th September, 1987, passed by the Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 2) (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).2. The dispute relates to a shop situated at Bazar Mangal, Qasba Behsuma, district Meerut. The said shop is hereinafter referred as 'disputed accommodation'. 3. It appears that the respondent No. 3 who is landlord of the disputed accommodation filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 (in short 'Act'), against the petitioner-tenant in respect of disputed accommodation. The release application was filed on the ground that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and was required for the purposes of demolition and new construction. The said release application was ...
Ram NaraIn Misra Vs. Gobardhan Das Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3062
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is the civil revision against the judgment and order dated 19.1.1989, passed by Sri U.K. Tripathi, the then learned Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, allowing the application of defendant-opposite party for setting aside ex parte judgment, order and decree dated 19.12.1987.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff-revisionist has filed a suit under Section 20 Clause (2) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The aforesaid suit was decreed ex parte. No application under proviso to Section 17 of Small Cause Courts Act was filed. The restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13 was filed without complying with the proviso to Section 17. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court has rejected the restoration application for want of compliance of the aforesaid proviso. In revision, the Additional District Judge has set aside the ex parte order and has...
Bhupesh Pandey and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1644
Pradeep Kant, J.1. These bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the students of Babu Banarsi Das National Institute of Technology and Management challenging the fee structure applicable to them. All the students have deposited their fee for the first year of Bachelor of Engineering Course (in short B.E. Course) as per the Government Order dated 30.7.1998 and also for the second year in the like manner. The challenge has been made to the fee structure when the petitioners were pursuing the course in the third year.2. The petitioners have disputed the authority of the State Government in issuing the Government Order dated 30.7.1998 enhancing the fee for the unaided Technical Education Institutions being run by the private sector and. in particular the fee which is being charged by the institution in question. The challenge has been made on the ground that the State was having no authority to enhance the fee, vide Government Order dated 30.7.1998 as against the fee prescribed by the e...
Ram Abhilakh Ojha Vs. Juggi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2841
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia challenging the orders dated 7.3.1981, 21.7.1982 and 30.7.1982 (Annexures-4, 6 and 9 to the writ petition).2. The dispute related to the first floor portion of the premises No. 86/264, Garg Road, Ralpurwa, Kanpur consisting of a small room and an open roof in front thereof. The said accommodation is herein referred to as 'the disputed accommodation.'3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed accommodation. By order dated 7.3.1981 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, it was held that there was deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation. By the same order, the disputed accommodation was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a review application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The said application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was dismissed ...
Raja Ram Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3101
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia challenging the orders dated 17th February. 1988, 6th April, 1988 and 12.8.1988, which have been annexed as Annexures-5, 6 and7 to the writ petition.2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the shop situated in Kasba and Tehsil Bhongaon district Mainpuri. The petitioner was the tenant of the said shop on monthly rental of Rs. 25.3. The respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 134 of 1984.4. The said release application of respondent No. 3 (landlord) wad dismissed in default on 19.10.1984 by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri (respondent No. 1).5. It further appears that the respondent No. 3 moved an application for restoration of the said release application. The said restoration application was registered as Misc. Case No. 351 of 1984,6. The said restoration applicat...
Swastik Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC173(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. In the present writ petition the impugned order dated June 19, 2002 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal on stay application in appeal No. 50 of 2002 has been challenged.2. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, along with Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage in the light of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.3. The petitioner, registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called as 'the Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as manufacturer of PVC pipes and fittings was granted exemption under Section 4-A of the Act and was issued eligibility certificate dated March 26, 1998 (annexure 1) from payment of tax for the period of ten years, w.e.f. September 25, 1995 to September 24, 2005 or to the extent of 200 per cent of the fixed capit...
Cit Vs. Ganga Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(All)585
Counsels: None, for the Revenue V. Gulati, for the AssesseeIn the Allahabad High Court S.K. Sen, C.J. & Ashok Bhushan, J.Judgment By the CourtAt the instance of revenue the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in working out the income, the assessee registered firm, was entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years brought forward against the income liable to assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. None appears for the applicant. We have heard Sri V. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. In view of the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT : [1991]189ITR512(SC) , We answer the question referred to in affirmative and decide the reference in favour of assessee and against the revenue.The reference is accordingly answered....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »