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.
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Prabha Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC580; 2005ACJ670
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Abhinav Upadhyay on behalf of the appellants and perused the record.The present first appeal from Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') is before us with a report of the Stamp Reporter indicating that the appeal has been filed beyond 1 year and 108 days of the prescribed period of limitation.2. Correctness of the said report is not disputed by the appellant.3. The appellants, along with F.A.F.O. also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning aforementioned delay of 1 year and 108 days in filing the appeal, on the facts enumerated in the said application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.4. To appreciate the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal made by the appellants (State of U.P. through the District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Allahabad), a few facts in brevity are hereunder.5. A claim ...
Cit Vs. Span International
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN28(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the Income Tax Officer had got merged in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to revise that order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that even on merits, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80HH of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. For this year the Income Tax Officer allowed deduction under section 80HH of the Act and held that all the requirements of the said section had been satisfied. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the opinion that the order of the Income Tax Officer was erron...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC341
Ghanshyam Dass, J.1. Judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981, passed by Sri V.S. Kulshrestha, the then IV Addl. District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh in Claim Petition No. 45 of 1978, Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. has given rise to the two appeals i.e. Appeal No. 269 of 1981 and Appeal No. 379 of 1981.2. The learned Counsels for the parties have been heard and record is perused.3. The matter relates to the accident which took place on 24.3.1978. The deceased Satya Narain Agarwal son of late Sri Panna Lal was travelling in Bus No. UPB 4567 vide ticket No. 39783 issued from Hathras to Aligarh which had the collision from truck No. UPB-4218, driven by the driver Raman, with the result that driver of bus and one woman died on the spot while the deceased Satya Narain Agarwal died on the same day at 8.45 p.m. in the hospital.4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Appeal preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. is being pressed to show that no compensation should have b...
Jivan Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ360CAT
1. By this Original Application Under Section 19 of A.T. Act, 1985 applicant has challenged the order dated 10.1.1996 (Annexure-1) by which an earlier decision communicated to the applicant vide order No.324 dated 28.2.1994 has been reviewed and the applicant has been held not entitled for pensionary benefits.2. The facts in short, giving rise to this application are that Jivan Shukla was appointed as L.D.C. on 21.10.1955 in the office of Controller of Defence Account (in short C.D. A.) (Pension), Allahabad.He was promoted subsequently as an Auditor. On 10.9.1974, applicant gave an application requesting the respondents for accepting his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.11.1975. In this letter applicant also prayed for grant of pension and gratuity for 20 years of service. The request of the applicant for voluntary retirement was accepted by order dated 15.11.1979 (Annexure-5) w.e.f. 1.11.1975. This order also said that applicant shall not be entitled to any pensionary benefits for the p...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Gulab Shanker Srivastava and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1156; [2003(97)FLR69]; (2003)IILLJ826All
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhaya learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 28.2.1998 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.3. The respondent No. 1 was Assistant Director of Education, U. P., and he was suspended on 26.4.1988 and thereafter he was charge-sheeted on 2.1.1989 and he gave a reply to the charge-sheet on 7,5.1990. True copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the Claim Petition, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. True copy of the reply of the respondent No. 1 to the charge-sheet is Annexure-11 to the Claim Petition.4. It appears that thereafter no notice was given to the petitioner informing him of the date, time and place of enquiry and the punishment order was passed on the basis of the reply given by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, which has been allowed....
Ravindra Kumar Rawat Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1175b; [2003(97)FLR846]
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was Class IV employee in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur and he died-in-harness on 13.11.1975. At the time of death of his father, the age of the petitioner was about eleven years. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground for the first time on 29.1.1990. It is about six years after he attained the age of majority. The application of the petitioner kept pending till the year 1992 when he was intimated that there is no vacancy of Class IV post till June, 1993 as no employee was going to retire and thereafter his application would be considered,3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after such communication having been given to the petitioner on 20.11.1992, the petitioner filed representations on 27.5.2001 and 22.10.2001 which are still pending and no decision has been taken by the respondents with r...
Dr. Ajit Kumar Saraswat Vs. Shiksha Nideshak (Uchcha Shiksha) Uchcha S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1384; (2003)1UPLBEC681
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admittedly the petitioner has been selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission for the post of Principal and the placement order of the Director, Higher Education dated 6.8.2002 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 6 is only an ad hoc Principal and hence he has no right to the post. It prima facie, seems to us that the Committee of Management and the respondent No. 6 are hands in glove and they are not permitting the petitioner, who is a regularly selected candidate, to join. 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 states that the petitioner's selection is illegal because the post in question is of the reserved category. In our opinion, this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 is not available to him as the respondent No. 6 is only an ad hoc Principal and hence, he has no right to the post. 4. The petition is, the...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State Public Service Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1392; (2003)IILLJ688All; (2003)1UPLBEC678
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned order of the U. P. Public, Service Tribunal dated 20.9.2002.3. The petitioner 1 was a stenographer in the office of the Trade Tax Department, Allahabad. He was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 19.2.2000 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition to which he gave reply vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held. True copy, of the enquiry report: dated 22.7.2000 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It has been observed by the enquiry officer that the then record keeper T.B. Singh appears to be responsible for disappearance of the record relating to a particular trader M/s. M.B. Traders, The enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that there la no material to show that T. B. Singh handed over the record to the petitioner, Chandra Pal Singh.4. The Tribunal in its impugned order Annexure-1 to the writ...
Mohd. Tafsheer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC89
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mohd. Tafseer has impugned the order 10th July, 2002 passed by Mr. J.P. Sharma, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential, Government of U.P., detaining him under Section 3(1) of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.The detention order, alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10,7.2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 25.7.2002 and their true copies have been collectively annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the detaining authority to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. In short their perusal would show as under:On 28.7.2001 on prior information received through an informer by Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) a party of the said Bureau at 3.00 p.m. reached the culvert on N...
Siddha Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4116
K.N. Ojha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 17-6-1980 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1979, State v. Siddha Gopal and three others, by which accused Siddha Gopal and Chiranji Lal have been convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and accused Ram Sewak and Kalkai have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Ram Sewak and Halkai are further convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and accused Siddha Gopal and Chiranji Lal are convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. All these four accused persons have further been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and each one of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. By the impugned order, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »