Allahabad Court November 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.
Bhikam Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2120
U. S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25-7-1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Badau in Session Trial No. 64 of 1980, convicting the appellants Bhikam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Ram Swarup and Chandra Pal under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing each of them undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story briefly stated was as under :--Prem Shankar deceased (45) was younger brother of appellant Ram Swarup. Appellant Chandra Pal is son of appellant Ram Swarup. Appellant Bhikam Singh and his son Rajendra Singh were friends of appellant Ram Swarup. Pitambar was real brother of Lekhraj, the father of appellant Ram Swarup and Prem Shankar deceased. Pitambar was having no issue and was residing with Prem Shankar deceased and his sons. It is alleged that Pitambar had given his all properties to three sons of Prem Shankar deceased, namely, Munna Babu (P.W. 1), Ram Babu and Udaivir. After death of Pitambar Ram Swarup appellant w...
Prestige Paints Vs. Cc and Ce and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC306; 2004(173)ELT6(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal and Sri. Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.R. Gupta for the respondents,2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur-Nagar to permit the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses as prayed for by the petitioner in its application dated 21.7.2003 and for quashing the order/letter dated 8.9.2003, Annexure-6 to the petition.3. The petitioner is propriety concern which carries in the business of manufacture of paints and varnish etc. at Kanpur. The Directorate General, Anti-Evasion conducted various search and seizures in the premises of the petitioner and during this operation, seized certain goods and documents and also recorded statements of various persons. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.8.1999 was served on the petitioner as well as several other persons making various allegations with a view to levy Central Excis...
Ganga Dhar Pandey Vs. Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC327; (2004)1UPLBEC452
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was given appointment as Registration Clerk in the Registration Department under respondent No. 1 on which post he joined on 14.6.1990. As per rules, the petitioner claims that he was entitled for being confirmed after completion of two years probation. However, he was confirmed only in the year 1965, which the respondents claim was done in 1970. On 20.8.1962, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Chief Registration Clerk. Thereafter, the petitioner claims that he was also posted as officiating Sub-Registrar vide order dated 20.11.1990 but again posted back as Chief Registration Clerk, Deoria on 3.4.1991. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to be regularised on the post of Chief Registration Clerk and for that purpose he filed representations claiming that he was a seniormost confirmed Registration Clerk and was actually working on the post of Chief Registration Clerk. One such representation addressed to respondent No. 1 was filed on 12.12...
Somai and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC325
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.10.2002 was set aside and the plot Nos. 203 and 205 were ordered to be re-situated accordingly in terms of the order dated 16.9.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while dealing with the petitioners' appeal, condoned the delay spreading over nine years in filing the appeal and directed plots 203/2 admeasuring 2 Biswas and Plot No. 203/3 2 Biswas and 16 Dhoors to be allotted to petitioners that while reversing judgment passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally in interfering with the discretion of the appellate authority in refusing to extend benefit of condonation of delay and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitatio...
Dr. Neelam Atri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC532; (2004)1UPLBEC631
ORDERM. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of Lecturer (Botany) in Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.3. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. K. Upadhyaya, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Bal Mukund for the Union of India.4. The petitioner has alleged that she has obtained First Division throughout her career and has also been awarded Ph.D. in Botany and hence, she should have been called for the interview.5. Sri V. K. Upadhyaya, learned, counsel for the B.H.U. has shown us the letter dated 5.11.2003 of the B.H.U. addressed to the petitioner stating that she has not been called for interview, as she has been shortlisted by the Short Listing Committee. The annexures to this letter show that the criterion for short-listing adopted by the Committee was that only t...
Girish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC508
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that petitioner had been allotted a place by the learned S.D.M., Kul Pahar, Mahoba, for running a photostat copy shop in tehsil premises. The term has expired, and though the petitioner had deposited the amount further, instead of allowing him to continue, respondent No. 5 is going to be allotted the said photostat copy shop's premises.2. The learned standing counsel has raised the serious objection that there is no provision for this kind of allotment either to the petitioner or somebody else, and in absence of any statutory rules, the land etc. should be allotted either by inviting tender or holding public auction.3. In Sachchidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with public property, the executive must make an endeavour to dispose it of by public auction or by inviting tenders, though that is the ordinary rule, may not be an invariable...
Praveen Kumar Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC338
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.10.2003, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for admission in LL. M. Course on the ground that the admission stood closed on 16.8.2003, and the result of the appellant of revaluation was declared on 15.9.2003.2. In the instant case, admittedly, the applicant could get the marks which could have made him eligible for admission in LL.M. Course only by revaluation and its result was declared on 15.9.2003 and admission stood closed on 16th August. 2003.3. The result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. Therefore, if the result of a candidate is not declared till the last date of submission of the application, he becomes ineligible for making application. Vide U. P. Public Service Commissioner v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 : Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Sekhar. (1997) 4 SCC 18 : State of Rqjasthan v. Hi...
Surendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Engineer-in-chief, P.W.D. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC412
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this case on 10.9.2002 one month's time was granted to the learned standing counsel, but counter-affidavit has not yet been filed. Hence we have treated the allegations in the petition to be correct.3. The petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer in U.P., P.W.D. From 7.8.1997 petitioner was on deputation to the Government of Botswna. On 4.12.2000 petitioner submitted a letter dated 2.12.2000, copy of which is Annexure-15 to the petition, in which he prayed that he should be allowed to take voluntary retirement under the Amended Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook. No order was passed on this application. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 40937 of 2001. which was disposed of by this Court on 5.12.2001 with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation praying for voluntary retirement preferably within six weeks. By the impug...
Brij Bhushan Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC502
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court refused to entertain the revision on the ground, firstly, the issue between the parties while rejecting amendment application is not finally decided and the revisionist is not deprived of any legal rights. He also records a finding that whatever revisionist wants to bring on record by way of amendment is already on record in one or the other form. Therefore, he refused to entertain the revision.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC). Paragraph 32, which is relevant and is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, runs as under :'32. A plain reading of Section 115, as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whe...
Ram Nagina Kisan Mahavidyalay Shiksha Samiti and ors. Vs. Bar Council ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC339; (2004)2UPLBEC1360
B. S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th August, 2003 (Annexure-3) passed by the Bar Council of India, hereinafter called the 'B.C.I.', by which it has rejected the application of the petitioners permitting them to open a new law college at Muriyari town (District Ghazipur) for the reason that it does not have a judicial District Headquarter.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioners applied for approval of affiliation/permission of opening a new law college in town Muriyari in district Ghazipur. The Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as the University granted the affiliation and no objection certificates for opening the new college. The B.C.I, sent an inspection team and after having local inspection, the said team made a recommendation in favour of the petitioners. However, by the impugned order, the B.C.I. disapproved the said r...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »