Allahabad Court April 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.
Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC616(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated July 3, 2002 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, in Appeal No. 111 of 2001. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed against the proceedings under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The applicant is a private limited company registered both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and has established a new industrial unit at Ghaziabad. The applicant, after completing all the formalities, applied for grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act. The Divisional Level Committee on May 27, 1994 granted the eligibility certificate to the applicant granting exemption from payment of tax for a period of 8 years with effect from October 16, 1993 to October 15, 2001 or to the extent of 125 per cent of the fixed capital investment. Thereafter, it appears, the applicant moved an application before the Division...
Suraj NaraIn Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All259
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred in person by Suraj Narain Srivastava, an Advocate practising in this Court over a decade, under the caption of public interest litigation.A large number of averments have been made in it but those to which the petitioner has restricted himself are contained in a part of para 19 of the petition and Ground F of Para 20 thereof. The averment, to which the petitioner has restricted himself in para 19, is that this Court be pleased to direct the opposite parties (originally only two opposite parties, namely, the State of U.P. through its Secretary of Law and Justice, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 1) and the Legal Remembrancer, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 2) were impleaded) to produce the entire list of the State Counsel, indicating therein the length of practice at High Court and the date of registration, so that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to d...
Smt. Shital Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC472; 2004ACJ1070; 2003(3)AWC2561
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 1,77,000 (Rupees one lac and seventy seven thousands only) as just compensation, to which the wife and minor son of the deceased Durgesh Chandra and his father and mother were found entitled to on account of his untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a TATA Truck bearing registration No, U.P. 80Q 9964 which was being driven rashly and negligently.3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record, has come to the conclusion that the deceased was aged about 23 years on the date of the accident and his income was Rs. 15,000 per annum. This finding was based on the provisions relating to the notional income as indicated in the schedule attached t...
Smt. Anju Gautam and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2403
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. Learned Standing Counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks. 2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 returnable at an early date.3. The petitioners are present before us personally today and they have stated that they had married each other according to Arya Samaj rights of their own free will and they are living with each other.4. Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, any man or woman who is a major can go anywhere and marry whom he or she likes.5. It is evident from a perusal of Annexure-1 to the petition, which is the High School Certificate of the petitioner No. 1, that the petitioner No. 1 was born on 13.10.1983. Hence, she has crossed the age of 19 years and no one can interfere with the said petitioner's right to marry whom she wishes or to go wherever she please.6. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well as the SHO Police Station, Civil Lines, Rampur, is directed not to interfere with the petitioners lives and not to harass, them in any way other...
Shyam Babu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2475
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a journalist, and through this writ petition has prayed for an enquiry against respondent No. 4, regarding certain allegations of corruption.2. We see no reason to order any such enquiry.3. A large number of writ petitions are coming before this Court praying that enquiry against some official or Government servant be made regarding corruption and irregularities committed by them. This Court will be flooded with such cases, if such writ petitions are entertained. The standards of public life have gone down sharply in the last two or three decades, and this Court is helpless in such matters. It is for the political leadership to set up high standards of public life and morality, and unless they do so, it is idle to expect the judiciary to wipe out the corruption and fraud which is going on everywhere in our country on a large scale.4. If there were only a few instances of corruption or misdemeanors by public servants the Court could have s...
Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Iv and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2316; [2003(97)FLR898]; (2003)2UPLBEC1119
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 9.10.1998, passed by the labour court allowing the application of the respondent and setting aside the award dated 8.7.1997 reopening the Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1992.2. Facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to this case are that petitioner who had been working with respondent No. 2, had been removed from service vide order dated 1.7.1991. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied petitioner raised an Industrial dispute, and the appropriate Government vide order dated 21.4.1992 in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the Act) made the reference to the labour court as to whether the termination was in accordance with law, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of the said reference workman filed the claim petition and the contesting respondents entered into appearance through their departmental representatives. Howe...
Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2399; (2003)2UPLBEC1559
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This is a unique case where the petitioner has considered to have a licence to abuse the process of the Court and approached the Court without complying with the order passed by this Court passed earlier. The petitioner was sent a bill for electricity charges by the respondents. As it was not paid, recovery proceedings were initiated against him and citation was issued. Instead of making the payment, he filed a Writ Petition No. 4558 of 2002, wherein this Court vide order dated 30.1.2002 considered it proper that an opportunity be given to the petitioner for making representation and, therefore, one month's time was given to the respondent-authorities to consider his representation. The said representation for adjusting his bills for the work done by him in the Elections for the State Assembly and Parliament was rejected.2. Being aggrieved petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 47654 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2002 observing as under ...
Pranjal Bishnoi (Minor) Vs. U.P. Technical University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2424
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the parties have prayed that writ petition itself be finally disposed of.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24th September, 2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) by which the University communicated the college that since aggregate marks of the petitioner in physics, chemistry and maths of intermediate examinations are less than 50%, hence it is not possible to grant permission for his admission in B.Tech. 1st year.4. The facts of the case as emerge from pleadings of the parties, briefly stated, are ; petitioner passed Senior School Certificate Examination, 2002 with 49.66% aggregate marks in physics, chemistry and maths. The petitioner applied for admission in B.Tech. course. University sent a communication dated 24th Sept...
Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Zila Panchayat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2430
ORDERM. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. The petitioner is challenging the grant of contract for excavation of Sand and Morang in favour of respondent No. 3 in this writ petition.2. Learned standing counsel, Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri P.S. Mishra may file counter-affidavit within three weeks. List thereafter.3. It appears that after the auction, none of the bids was accepted and the contract in question was settled by private negotiations with respondent No. 3. Prima facie, in our opinion, this is illegal as held by the Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1147 and this Court in Abdul Gaffar v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1998 (1) AWC 706 and Ashok Kamar v. State of U. P., 1995 ACJ 1066. In the circumstances, we direct that nobody shall operate the contract in question till further orders.4. Learned standing counsel submits that only the State Government can give the contract but Sri Ojha submits that the Zila Panchayat is entitled to give the contrac...
Roshan Packed Movers Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2468
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice of demand dated 17.2.2003, by which the respondent Indian Oil Corporation has put a demand of Rs. 5,50,800 for loss of 306 cylinders being carried in the vehicle of the petitioner.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner Transport Co. had entered into a contract of transporting the LPG cylinders of the respondent Corporation to various agencies. The truck belonging to the petitioner carrying 306 LPG cylinders was allegedly taken way by force by antisocial elements on 26.1.2003 and petitioner lodged the F.I.R. in respect of the said crime and also informed the respondent Corporation. However, the respondent Corporation has put a demand of Rs. 5,50,800 vide impugned notice dated 17.2.2003 as a compensation to the said loss. Hence, this petition for quashing the said notice.3. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company has lodged th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »