Allahabad Court February 2003 Judgments
Mohd. Atiq Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1818
ORDERM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.1. Heard Sri Mool Bihari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.R. Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.3.2002, Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.3. The petitioner claims to be nephew of Mohd. Yusuf who was working as Trolley Man under the Assistant Signal Telecommunication Engineer who was posted in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad. It is alleged that Mohd. Yusuf had no son except three daughters and, therefore, he adopted the petitioner on 5.12.1987. All the three daughters of Mohd Yusuf are married and, therefore, the petitioner is living from the date of adoption with Mohd. Yusuf. Mohd. Yusuf bequeathed his property to his nephew. Mohd. Yusuf died leaving behind him his widow and the petitioner. The widow prayed that the petitioner should be given appointment under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1813b
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue permit in their favour forthwith which was renewed by the resolution dated 21.1.1997 for five years in the name of petitioner's mother Smt. Shanti Devi.2. There is no material in support of the allegations made in the writ petition that the petitioners made representation to the authority concerned for issuing such permit in their favour.3. The law of mandamus is well-settled that no mandamus will be issued unless before approaching this Court, the petitioner has asked for Justice from the authority concerned and justice has been denied to him. Ordinarily, justice will be demanded in the shape of a representation. Vide Dr. Mithilesh Dikshit v. Management Committee and Ors., 2001 (2) AWC 1586 and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Chanan Mal etc., AIR 1976 SC 1654.4. No doubt, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioners made an application before the auth...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Vs. District Magistrate/Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1151
A.K. Yog and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.1. In the instant case, the petitioners have come up with the grievance that recovery certificate issued against them is illegal and it should not be allowed to be pressed and given effect to in view of the fact that Parishad authorities have not settled the matter by compromise with respect to illegal constructions made by them.2. Without going into the legal niceties or otherwise of the case we take notice of the fact that illegal constructions were raised by the petitioners and there should not be allowed to be settled by compromise and the Parishad authorities have no right to power to settle the illegal constructions by compromise in liew of money, if nosing larger interest of the public at large. We take judicial notice of the fact that by compromise illegal constructions particularly of any markets which is adjoining to the roads while the area of the roads can not be increased whereas a number of vehicles as well as public are increasing manifold...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neelkamal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All151
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the order dated 24-1-2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) in so far as it has imposed the condition for deposit of 1/3rd of the total amount of the deficient stamp duty. 2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that proceedings under Section 47A(4)/33 of the Indian Stamps Act were taken against the petitioner in respect of sale deed dated 27-6-1995 executed in favour of the petitioner. 3. By the order dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Sitapur, it was found that the land in question had been under valued, and in consequence, Rs. 1,71,875-50 paisa was determined as the deficient stamp duty. 4. Thereupon, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Khanna Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1326
ORDERA.K. Yog and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ. 1. Sri Ved Vyas Mtshra, advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 points out that this petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2002 Rajesh Khanna v. District Magistrate and Ors., in respect of the loan in question, which was got dismissed as not pressed (without seeking liberty of the Court to present fresh petition). Another Writ Petition No. 27341 of 2002 was filed in respect of the same loan. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that earlier writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed without liberty from the Court to file fresh petition. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent, the aforesaid facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is, in our opinion, gross abuse of the process of court. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be ignored. No compassion or sympathy can beshown to a litigant, like the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Durga Dutt Chunni Lal Sagar Mal Khandelwal Po ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1372
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 23.7.2002 Annexure-27 to the writ petition. This order was passed in pursuance of the directive of the Chancellor dated 10.8.2001, Annexure-25 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner is the Committee of Management of a Post Graduate College. The respondent No. 3 was a permanent Principal onprobation in the said institution. The Committee of Management found his work unsatisfactory and passed a resolution for terminating his service but the Vice-Chancellor disapproved it on 15.11.2000. Against the order of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner went in appeal under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act to the Chancellor. The Chancellor remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor, who again disapproved the termination vide order dated 23.7.2002. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Vice-Chancellor...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. 22 C.P. Triveni Dutt Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1446
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the communication order dated 13th November, 2002, whereby the order dated 16th January, 2002 has been communicated to the petitioner by the impugned order by which the petitioner has been denied out-of-turn promotion as recommended by the competent authority pursuant to some Government Order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court after a lapse of about one year. The only explanation that has been given is that the order has not been served on the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order impugned in the present writ petition. Only the photo copy was served on the petitioner on 1st February, 2003. Since I am inclined to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is entertained and I am not entering into the...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Assistant C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC307(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The petitioners are dealers of chocolates. The turnover of chocolate was subjected to four per cent of tax in the assessment proceedings. Subsequently on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1998] 111 STC 425 ; STI 1998 SC 97 notices under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been issued in some of the writ petitions on the ground that the toffee is taxable as an unclassified item and is not sweetmeat. In some writ petitions notices under Sections 21 and 22 are under challenge. In other writ petitions provisional assessment notices and proceedings have been challenged on the ground that toffee/chocolate is taxable as sweetmeat and not as unclassified item.2. Since common questions of law are involved, all these writ petitions were heard together with the consent of counsel for both the parties and are being disposed of by th...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3426
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 23rd March, 1981, passed by Sri J. M. Srivastava, III Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, deciding Sessions Trial No. 396 of 1980 (State v. Vakil Ahmad and another connected with Sessions Trial No; 589 of 1980 (State v. Gaya Prasad). The three appellants have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read With Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 1981 has been preferred by Gaya Prasad, whereas Criminal Appeal 791 of 1981 has been preferred by Vakil Ahmad and Mobin Ahmad who are real brothers.2. It is the murder of one Imam Ali which is involved in this case. The incident took place in between the night of 28/29th April, 1980 at about 1.30 A.M. at the Khalihan of the deceased, situate in village Sarai Aram, P. S. Sultanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur. The report was lodged on 29-4-1980 at 4 A.M. by the deceased's son Ehsan Ali P.W. 1 who claimed to be an eye-witness. The distance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Vikky Alias Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3457
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist. Vicky alias Vikram Singh was detained in case crime No. 910/2002 under Section 304 IPC Police Station Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar. The revisionist moved an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, who declared him to be juvenile by order dated 3-1-2003 but refused the bail on the ground that the offence is of heinous nature and is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. An appeal against the said order was preferred but the Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar, dismissed the appeal.3. The factum of revisionist being juvenile had not been disturbed by the appellate Court but his appeal has been dismissed without applying mind or caring for the law. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »