Allahabad Court September 2003 Judgments
Kaptan and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1556
M. Chaudhary, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 961 of 1981 Kaptan v. State, 1060 of 1981 Dushasan v. State and 1013 of 1981 Jagat Pal v. State having arisen out of judgment and order dated 18th of April, 1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 446 of 1980 State v. Jagat Pal and others by V Additional Sessions Judge Etah all the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment.2. Accused Jagat Pal faced trial for the offence punishable Under Section 364, IPC and was held guilty of the charge levelled against him and convicted accordingly and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years thereunder. Accused Dushasan, Kaptan and Ram Pal faced trial for the offences punishable UnderSections 302 and 201 each read with Section 34, IPC and all of them were held guilty of the charge levelled against them and convicted accordingly and each of them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively thereunder.3. Since accused Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Singh Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC451
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 23.3.1992 in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Amamadapur; which is a Primary Agriculture Credit Society. The appointment is said to have been approved by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies.3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his order of termination-dated 5.1.1997, which was passed on the ground that there was a ban on appointment in 1992 when the petitioner was appointed.4. The petitioner submits that the ban on appointments was imposed by the Registrar by order-dated 23.5.1992. He alleges that he was appointed on 1.4.1992 before 23.5.1992, i.e., the date of imposition of ban hence, his services could not have been terminated on the ground given in the letter of termination of his services and that he had been working satisfactorily for about 5 years and his appointment cannot be cancelled without any notice or opportunity of hear...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2665
M. Chaudhary, J. 1. This an appeal from Judgment and order dated 11th ofMarch, 1981 passed by Sessions JudgeAllahabad in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1979,State v. Virendra Kumar Singh convictingthe accused under Section 302, IPC andSection 25 of the Arms Act and sentencinghim to imprisonment for life and sixmonths's rigorous imprisonment respectively thereunder.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appealare that at about 12 : 15 noon on 18th ofDecember 1978 HC Ram Saran Singh lodgedan FIR at police station Daraganj DistrictAllahabad alleging that in the forenoon ofthat very noon he was on patrol duty and atabout 11.30 a.m. as he reached Matiyaracrossing he saw Ratneshwar Prasad aliasRaja going on a bicycle In front of the grocery shop of Gopal Das Jaisval on the roadgoing through the Kidwai Nagar locality; thataccused Virendra Kumar Singh who was alsoon his bicycle made the bicycle of Ratneshwaralias Raja stop telling him he used to misbehave with his sister and now he wouldkill him and im...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2806
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Though on record there are three applications dated 10.10.1995, 28.2.1996 and 21 8.1996 filed by Sri V.K. Barman, Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent, for listing the stay vacating application alleged to have been filed by him on 3.5.1995 along with counter-affidavit, but no such stay vacating application is on the record along with counter-affidavit. The office has also reported vide its reports dated-19.7.1996 and 28.4.2003 that no stay vacating application along with counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. On 9.9.2003 I had asked Sri Samir Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner, to inform Sri Barman to be present when the case is taken up after lunch, but no one was present for the contesting respondent. Sri Samir Sharma states that he had informed Sri Barman in writing vide his letter dated 9.9.2003 that the case would be taken up after lunch. The said letter of Sri Samir Sharma dated 9.9.2003 is placed on the record. 2. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi (Smt.) Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2622
Anjani Kumar, J.1.The petitioner, who is Gram Pradhan of concerned Gram Panchayat has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 19th June, 2003, Anncxure-'6' to the writ petition, whereby the District Magistrate restrained the petitioner from exercising financial and administrative powers and appointment of a Committee of three members of the Gram Panchayat in exercise of powers under the proviso of Section 95 (l)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, reproduced below, which shall here-in-after referred to as 'first proviso': '[Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting...
Tag this Judgment!Caryaire Equipments India Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Finance
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2005(99)ECC626; 2005(179)ELT522(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Circular dated 13-9-2000 Annexure-13 to the writ petition and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from imposing any excise duty on the grills, dampers and diffusers manufactured by the petitioner under tariff entry no. 84.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Piyusk Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Central Government for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and has a factory at Noida where it manufactures aluminium grills, dampers and diffusers which are fixed on the walls and ceilings of buildings as ventilation opening where the air cooling/heating ventilation system or central air-conditioning system are installed in the building and sites.4. It is alleged in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the air distribution pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mehndi HussaIn Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2814
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the award dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar in Industrial Dispute No. 170 of 1984 (hereinafter called as C.G.I.T.). The petitioner has prayed that compensation of Rs. Ten thousand awarded to him in lieu of reinstatement of service be enhanced to Rs. 2.5 lacs.3. The petitioner, who is an Ex-military person was appointed as Armed Guard on 15.1.1970 on temporary basis at Allahabad Branch of the State Bank of India and subsequently he was selected for the post of Armed Guard and was appointed on substantive basis on probation in the same branch on 9.7.1971. The contention of the petitioner is that he was charged of having submitted a fabricated and forged certificate on 9.7.1971 allegedly issued by the Principal, R.R.K. Secondary School, Dalipur,' Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi (Smt.) Vs. Government of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2825
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is Gram Pradhan of concerned Gram Panchayat has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 3rd July, 2003, Annexure '12' to the writ petition, which was communicated by Chief Development Officer vide its order dated 23rd July, 2003, Annexure-'IO' to the writ petition, whereby the District Magistrate restrained the petitioner from exercising financial and administrative powers.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who was elected as Pradhan of concerned Gram Panchayat in July, 2000, was issued a show cause notice dated 24th April, 2002 by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as amended in the year 1994, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner be not restrained from exercising financial and administrative power and committee be n...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Tiwari Vs. Union of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN482(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J. This writ petition and connected writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner is challenging the validity of notification dated 25-9-2001 (Annexure-l to the writ petition), by which rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner is also challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 on the ground that it has delegated essential legislative powers and that it is violative of Articles 19(1) and 246 of the Constitution.2. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioner is an Association of Officers of Airport Authority of India.3. Before dealing with the controversy in this case, we may refer to section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act which states that for the purposes of sections 15 and 16 and of that section ...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bhushan Tiwari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3444
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000 of amount of insurance policy with upto date interest.2. The petitioner claims to be a nominee of Policy No. 310175506 taken by one Matapher Tiwari from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Allahabad. According to the petitioner, Shri Matapher Tiwari was his grandfather and had nominated the petitioner for payment of the above policy. Shri Matapher Tiwari died on 15.11.1995 and the petitioner informed about his death to the authorities on 10.1.1996 but when he did not receive any information from the opposite parties till 20.3.1996, he sent a reminder to the opposite parties. The petitioner claims that on 1,6.1996 he received an acknowledgment of his letter sent to the respondents and asking him to furnish certificate of death of the deceased. In compliance of this letter, he sent the required death certificate. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »