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.
Shushil Singh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1854
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Shushil Singh has impugned the order dated 22-9-2002 passed by the first respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Kheri, detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.S.A. Act)The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 22-9-2002, was served on the petitioner detenu on 22-9-2002 itself and their true copies are 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 the grounds of detention (annexure-2). A perusal of Annexure-2 would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C. R. namely, C. R. No. 168/2002, Under Sections 147/148/149/ 302/307/452/504/506/379 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act...
Dharmendra Dhish Dubey Vs. Chairman, Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetriya GramIn B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR925]; (2003)1UPLBEC724
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. Challenge before this Court is the show cause notice dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition)by which the petitioner has been intimated about the proposed punishment and he has been called upon to place his version either by appearing in person or through his representative.3. Ground as has been taken in writ petition and as argued by the learned Counsel, for the petitioner against show cause notice appears to be several i.e., (i) delay in starting proceedings which leads violation of the principles of natural justice; (ii) charge-sheet was issued under the old regulations but the impugned show cause notice has been issued under the new regulation; (iii) proceedings against the petitioner are malaflde; (iv) the charges against the petitioner are frivolous and they are not proved; and (v) other employees facing same charges have been exonerated and...
Indian Steel Works Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC285(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are two S.T.R. Nos. 1705 of 1990 and 1706 of 1990 filed by the assessee against the order of Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, dated October 11, 1995, by which, two applications for recalling the earlier orders dated April 21, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 and the order dated April 30, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 have been dismissed.2. Vide order dated April 21, 1990 the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the applicant ex parte for the assessment year 1983-84 and vide order dated April 30, 1990, the Tribunal had decided the appeal ex parte relating to the assessment year 1984-85. Appeal No. 18/1987 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1983-84 and Appeal No. 22/1987 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1984-85 were fixed for hearing on April 6, 1990 before the Tribunal. It appears that no one appeared on behalf of assessee and therefore, ex parte orders have been passed. To recall the ex parte orders, two applications...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC521; [2003(96)FLR414]
M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6.9.2002. The respondent No. 2 is the widow of late Dinesh Kumar who was appointed as temporary labour (Khalasi) on 3.2.1987. He was absent from service from 19.4.1994 to 21.2.1995 and was charge-sheeted and removed from service with effect from 14.6.1996. Subsequently he died. His widow filed an O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the enquiry was illegal as the enquiry was ex parte and no enquiry report was sent to the applicant.3. These are findings of fact and hence we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, apart from merits of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution since the respondent No. 2 is a widow and she has been granted pension and other benefits by the Tribunal. Hence, we are not exercising our equity jurisdiction under A...
Smt. Kamla Devi Khetan Vs. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC528
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Subject matter of impugnment in the instant petition are the order dated 19.8.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj in exercise of powers under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act and the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, thereby levying stamp duty of Rs. 45,920 payable by the petitioner ostensibly to make good the deficiency. 2. Necessary facts shedding light on the controversy involved in this petition may be stated and they are that the petitioner purchased a house by registered sale deed on 12.9.1997 from one Dwarika Dass paying stamp fee against the value of Rs. 4,44,500. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice, which escalated into proceeding before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) thereby adjudging deficiency of Rs. 43,920 and imposing a sum of Rs. 45,920 payable by the petitioner by means of the order dated 19....
Sudhir Singh Vs. District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC526b; (2003)IILLJ428All
M. Katju, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.3.1999, Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which he has been removed from service. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It appears that the petitioner was Branch Manager of the Muzaffarnagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. He was suspended by order dated 2.7.1997 vide Annexure-3 and he was given a charge-sheet dated 22.8.1997 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In this charge-sheet, various allegations of financial irregularities, embezzlement and fraud have been made against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the charges vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that no enquiry was held, instead the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 24.7.1998 to which he gave a reply dated 8.8.1998 vide Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. 4. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that the peti...
Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC739; (2003)1UPLBEC749
R.B. Mishra, J. 1. In this writ petition order dated 29.11.1997, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer/ Appointing and Punishing Authority, Garautha (Jhansi), has been challenged whereby the petitioner's service has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty, for less collection of revenue, depositing the revenue to the treasury without getting it verified by senior officer, not depositing the revenue timely to the treasury or for not depositing to the concerned man. Heard Sri Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Sharma, additional chief standing counsel along with Sri Raj Kumar standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief fact necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition was that petitioner was suspended on 21.3.1996 and was served a charge-sheet on 5.9.1996 which was replied by the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer served a supplementary charge-sheet and the petitioner had again submitted his reply and thereafter t...
Kailashi Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Food and Civil Supplies D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1381; (2003)1UPLBEC687
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This petition was dismissed by me after hearing thelearned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on 6th January, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The petitioner was working as chaukidar in the godown of Deputy Regional Food Controller, Hathras. His duty hours, according to his statement in the writ petition, were started on the relevant date from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and the other chaukidar, namely. Veer Pal Singh whose duty was on the night from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m., a theft took place in the night intervening 17/18th July, 1998. According to the statement made by the petitioner, his duty came to an end at 8.00 p.m. and thereafter Veer Pal Singh, another chaukidar was supposed to be there. A first information report was lodged regarding the aforesaid theft which involved 66.50 quintals wheat, 30-40 quintals rice and 11 quintals sugar from the aforesaid godow...
Gavendra Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Commissioner, U.P. Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2218
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioners to lift the minimum guaranteed quantity of the country liquor from the month of December, 2002 to 31.3.2003 and to charge licence fee only on the amount of quantity which is lifted for sale by the petitioners for these months. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are licensees for retail sale of country liquor under the U. P. Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002, in district Aligarh. Copies of their licences have been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. These licences have been granted for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. 4. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition the petitioners have given various reasons for not lifting the minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor. It is alleged in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition that the fixation of minimum guaranteed quantity and the...
Shambhoo Vs. H.L. Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1859
ORDERBhanwar Singh, J. 1. This application has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.2. Shambhoo, the petitioner is one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 598 (SS) of 1998 which is still pending before this Court. An interim order was issued in the writ petition on 17-5-1999 whereby the respondents 1 to 4 of the said petition were directed not to make any appointment or recruitment or engagement otherwise than through the agency of a contractor. The members of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Sangh were also not to be displaced from their respective posts, if their services have not already been terminated. Again on October 25, 1999, this Court directed the opposite-parties to engage the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition on daily wage basis keeping in view their past services rendered in the Corporation. Shambhoo and some other petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition No. 3294 of 1987 and a Division...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »