Allahabad Court May 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.
Santoo and ors. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All131
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The appellant Santoo (since deceased) filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute as shown in the said plan given at the foot of the plaint. The relief for mandatory injunction has also been sought directing the respondents to remove cattle troughs etc. The respondents contested the suit and they claimed the ownership and possession of the disputed land. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the disputed land. He has also failed to prove his title over the same. That the cattle troughs put by the respondents could not be removed. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by if the appellant preferred first appeal No. 30 of 1981. The respondents also preferred appeal No. 605 of 1981. Both the appeals were heard and dismissed on 18-8-1982. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.2. I have heard Shri J. J. Muneer,...
Baldev Raj Vs. Prof. G.K. Mehta Vice-chancellor, University of Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1615
1. Heard Sri Baldev Raj Advocate (appearing in person), Sri P.S. Bhaghel, counsel for the University and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate for intervenors Ravindra Pratap Singh and Vijai Kumar Sinha, Sri Sanjeev Singh for the Allahabad University Teachers' Association have also been heard as they have instructions from their clients in this matter.2. Before dealing with the case it is desirable to give the background, which has given rise to this contempt application.3. The University of Allahabad was established in November 1887. The system of governing the University was reorganized by the Allahabad University Act, 1921. Under Section 16 of the University Act, 1921, provision for the meetings of University Court was made.4. In this contempt application, we are concerned only with the non-compliance of the order dated 23.10.2000, by which direction was issued for holding election of the University court after rectification of the Graduate list of the voters for elections of Univers...
Smt. Kala Kumari Vs. Ram Bhawan Anand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All54; II(2004)DMC516
Mukteshwar Prasad, J. 1. These two appeals at the Instance of wife are directed against the Judgment and order dated 28-4-1998 passed by Sri V. N. Shukla the then Family Judge. Gorakhpur. whereby he dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and allowed the petition of the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and directed the wife to discharge her marital obligations within two months.2. Smt Kala Kumari wife of Ram Bhawan Anand filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage with the husband by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty meted out to her by her husband.3. This petition was filed on 10-10-1996, Subsequently. In January 1997, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions filed by the parties were heard together and disposed of by a common Judgment and order dated 28-4-1998. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the wife against the aforesaid judgment ...
Mohd. Rafiq (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1546
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mohd. Rafiq has impugned the order dated 16-10-2002 passed by Mr. Onkar Nath Mishra, District Magistrate. Siddharth Nagar, (opposite party No. 2) detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 16-10-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 16-10-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the second opposite party to issue the impugned detention order against him, are contained in the grounds of detention. Since, in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication of the pleadings contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition and ground 'N' of paragraph No. 17 thereof, on which, alone this petition deserves to succee...
Naeem Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4651
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. The above two writ petitions have separately been filed by each of the petitioners for quashing the detention order dated 11-9-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Agra, respondent No. 1 under Section 3(2) of National Security Act.2. Each of the petitioners was separately served with the grounds of detention along with order of detention, which stated that on 30-8-2002 at about 8.30 a. m. 10-45 persons of Mohallas Shiv Nagar and Radhey Wali Gali came to police out post Sarai Khawaja and informed Officer Incharge of the said police out post that cow was being slaughtered in the house of petitioner Naeem situate in Mohalla Shiv Nagar Radhey Wali gali. They also told that several persons of Hindu community armed with lathis, dandas had surrounded the said house of Naeem and were saying loudly that it was insult to Hindu religion. On above information, Officer Incharge of police out post informed higher authorities on telephone and he visited the spot along with heavy po...
Jeet Lal Vs. the Labour Court-v and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2300
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 7th May, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition. 2. Petitioner Jeet Lal, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of the Labour Court-V, U,P., Kanpur dated 31st October, 1984, passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1984, whereby application purporting to an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act', filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-'16' to the writ petition. The petitioner's case, as set up by him before the Labour Court as well as in the writ petition, is that he was working with the UP. State Agro Industrial Cooperation Limited, Ashok Nagar, Etawah, the employer, since 1975 a...
District Cooperative Sugar Cane Supply Societies Ltd. Through Its Secr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR749]
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits.2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 26.5.1982, passed by Labour Court, U.P., Bareilly in adjudication case No. 206 of 1981, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-'11' to the writ petition. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that concerned workman, namely, Ved Prakash Sharma, who was an employee of the petitioner, whose services have been terminated in the year 1966, approached the State Government with the prayer that the matter of termination may be referred to the Labour Court when he was acquitted from the criminal Court from the charges levelled against him. The State Government referred the aforesaid matter by the order dated 07.6,1981 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour ...
Rathi Super Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC646(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated February 19, 2003 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 133 of 2002. The short controversy involved in the present revision is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee, rejecting the application under section 4-A and refusing to consider subsequent notification dated December 16, 2002.2. The applicant is a public limited company having its factory at Ghaziabad. The applicant applied for grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act on account of expansion and diversification of the unit undertaken by it. The facts are not in dispute. The date of first production of the unit under diversification is July 31, 2001. The unit applied for grant of eligibility certificate in pursuance of the notification dated December 22, 2001. Under the said notification it is provided that in respect of any goods manufactured in the uni...
Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)344; [2003]263ITR97(All)
1. At the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining levy of interest under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and runs a sugar mill in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar. For the assessment year 1978-79, the return was submitted for the income derived from manufacture and sale of sugar, showing an estimate of Rs. 15 lakhs. Subsequently, the revised return was filed in December, 1977, on an estimate of Rs. 65 lakhs. The assessment order dated July 31, 1980, was passed on the basis of the revised return on the income of Rs. 65,29,900. The last part of the order runs as under :'Charge interest as per law. Issue notice under Section 274/273(a). Charge interest under Section 215. As...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Juhi Metal Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(All)344; [2003]263ITR287(All)
1. In spite of service to the assessee to engage another counsel, no step has been taken nor has anybody entered in reference on behalf of the assessee. 2. We heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. 3. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referring the following two questions : Reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax R. A. No. 431 (Alld) of 1981, assessment year 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) was bad in law ?' 4. Reference by the assessee, R. A. No. 298 (Alld) of 1981, assessment year 1977-78. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid ?' 5. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper S...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »