Allahabad Court January 2003 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.
Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC52(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash clause (3) of the Composition Scheme dated August 10, 2000 Under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 annexure 5 to the writ petition and for a writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated August 10, 2000 issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., annexure 6 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It had been awarded three civil works contracts as stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition. Photocopies of the works orders are annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that it involved civil work including earth work, development of the area, construction of road, walkways, landscaping, etc. Under Section 2(h) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 the transfer of property involved in the execution of a works contract is treated as sale. Under Section 3-F of the A...
R.R. Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC519; [2003(96)FLR645]; (2003)IILLJ675All
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned suspension order dated 9.12.2002.3. The petitioner was Executive Engineer in the service of U. P. Jal Nigam and he has been suspended by the Impugned order.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order is illegal because it does not mention the charges. In our opinion, a suspension order is not a charge-sheet and hence, it is not necessary to mention the charges in detail in the suspension order. The detailed charges can be given subsequently by a chargesheet.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mitthan Lal Sharma v. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, U. P. and Ors., 1995 ACJ 604. It was held in that decision that there should be some indication in the suspension order of the nature of the mis-conduct proposed to be charged. In the present impugned or...
Bhola Prasad Nishad Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC546
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was granted a lease from 1998 to 2001. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not allowed to excavate the sand for the period of the lease. The petitioner made several representations to the District Magistrate, copies of which are Annexure-3 to the writ petition, but to no avail. The petitioner filed an appeal but that has been rejected stating that the appeal was not against any order vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition.3. In our opinion, when the period of a lease has expired, the lessee cannot claim extension of the period of the lease on the ground that he was not permitted to operate the lease for the whole or part of the lease period vide Writ Petition No. 13638 of 1993, Jata Shanker Pandey v. Collector, decided on 5.10.1993 by a Division Bench of this Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner can only file an application claiming for refund of the ...
ishu Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC774
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. It would transpire from the record that a minor dispute relating to correction/mutation in the revenue record, escalated in proceedings which travelled upto the stage of Commissioner and resulted in passing of the orders impugned in this petition including the orders passed by appellate as well as revisional authorities. The main plank of the grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have not appraised the evidence and consequently merits of the case in its proper perspective. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel representing the opposite parties. Since elaborate arguments have been canvassed at the very threshold, I feel, that the petition should be decided in limine. 3. The law is well-settled that orders passed by the revenue authorities in proceedings under Sections 33, 34. 35 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act we...
Guddu Singh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2296
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Guddu Singh has impugned the order dated 3-8-2002, passed by the first respondent Mr. V. K. Varshney, District Magistrate Kheri detaining him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act. (actually it should have been Section 3(2) of the National Security Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 3-8-2002 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 3-8-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu impelling the first respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in Annexure No. 2. A perusal of Annexure No. 2 would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary CR No. 168 of 2002 under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/452/379/504 IPC and 3(2)(V) of ST/ST Act of P. S. Maigalga...
RiyazuddIn Vs. Commissioner, Milk Dairy Development and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC521b
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of order dated 17th March, 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 thereby dismissing the petitioner from the post of Mechanic.2. Necessary facts as are relevant for just adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition may be set out. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents in the year 1966, having been appointed on the post of Mechanic. In the year 1996, he was called upon to produce documents furnishing details of date of birth and educational qualifications by means of letter dated 2.11.1996 and in compliance, the petitioner submitted certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, dated 18.11.1996 as also the transfer certificate containing details of his having passed 5th standard and indicating his date of birth as being 15.10.1946. In the certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, he was opined to be 50 years of age on 18.11.1996. From a cumulative readi...
Bihari Lal Chauhan Vs. Director of Factories and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1069; [2003(96)FLR1087]; (2003)IIILLJ597All
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 19.12.2002. 2. In our opinion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, transfer is an exigency of service and the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with a transfer order. Secondly, the writ petition has been filed against a private company, i.e., Samtal Colour Ltd. Ordinarily, no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. 3. No doubt the language of Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide. Article 226 states : '226 (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within those territories directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, quo warranto and certtorari, or any of them, for...
Ram Asrey and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2276
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the six appellants namely, Ram Asrey, Khelawan, Bhagwati, Ram Harakh, Raja Ram and Kallu have challenged the judgment and order dated 21-7-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1980 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--1. Ram Harakah :(i) under Section 148, I.P.C. to two years' R. I.; and(ii) under Section 302, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life.2. Kallu :(i) under Section 148, I.P.C. to two years' R. I.; and(ii) under Section 326, I.P.C. read with 149, I.P.C. to three years' R. I.3. Ram Asrey, Khelawan, Bhagwati and Raja Ram :(i) under Section 147, I.P.C. to one year's R. I.; and(ii) under Section 326, I.P.C. read with 149, I.P.C. to three years' R. I.The substantive sentences of the six appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The informant Sardar, his sons Babu Lal, P. W. 3 and Sunder (not examined), deceased Rameshwar and wife of the deceased Smt. Sukha,...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2284
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.2. Accused Sanjay Kumar was challaned by Raniya Police Station for the offence under Sections 392 and 411, I.P.C. The revisionist moved an application before the Additional C.J.M. (Juvenile Judge) for declaring him to be a juvenile., The said application was rejected on 20th of July, 2002. The revisionist filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against the order of the Additional C.J.M. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal declaring the revisionist to be a juvenile but refused to grant bail to him. Against the said order the present revision has been filed.3. I have perused the impugned judgment. The provision contained in Section 12 of the Act No. 56 of 2000, lays down that if a juvenile accused is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appears reaso...
Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1857
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Sher Singh has impugned the order dated 2-8-2002, passed by the third opposite party, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, District Magistrate, Agra, detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 2-8-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 2-8-2002 and their true copies have been collectively filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.2. We have heard counsel for the parties. Since in our view this writ petition deserves to succeed on the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition and those contained in Ground No. 28 (h) thereof, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the grounds of detention. The substance of the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition and ground No. 28(h) thereof, is that althou...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »