Allahabad Court January 2004 Judgments
Committee of Management, Mukarram Inter College Pahasu Vs. Regional Le ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1083
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.1. This Special Appeal is the result of a spate of litigation between the rival factions of the Committee of Management of Mukarram Inter College, Pahasu, District Bulandshahr. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 21.3.2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9016 of 2003. The said writ petition was filed by the Committee of Management of the college through its Manager Rahat Azim for quashing the order dated 15.2.2003 passed by respondent No. 1, Regional Level Committee and the consequential order dated 18.2.2003 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr. By the said order dated 15.2.2003 the Regional Level Committee held that the election of the Committee of Management dated 9.1.2000 in which writ petitioner Rahat Azim was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management was illegal, and recognised the election of the Committee of Management held on 14.9.2001 in which appellant Shafiullah Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Singh and anr. Vs. Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All240; 2004(2)AWC1293; (2004)2UPLBEC1893
M. Katju and Poonam Srivastava, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Agra rejecting their representations dated 21.8.2002 and 8.1.2003. The respondent has directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of Hoarding tax to a tune of Rs. 88,181 to the Nagar Nigam, Agra within a period of 15 days.3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.4. The petitioner No. 1 was working in the Nagar Nigam as Revenue Inspector in the Advertisement Department and retired in the year 1995. Before the petitioner No. 1 had retired, his son petitioner No. 2 Shishupal used to run two advertising agencies in the name and style of Vikram Advertisers and Hanuman Traders. The record shows that Shishupal was recorded as proprietor and Jai Narain as Manager for both the firms. The two firms s...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Pipal and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1664; (2004)2UPLBEC1473
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 20th May. 2003 of a learned Judge by which Writ Petition No. 1815 of 2003 filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Trade Tax, Aligarh has been dismissed.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are; Assistant Commissioner (Administration), Trade Tax, Aligarh issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up seven backlog vacancies of class IV from amongst scheduled caste candidates. In response to advertisement 3559 applications were received, 2209 candidates were called for interview including the appellants. The selection committee was headed by one Sri B. D. Upadhyaya, Assistant Commissioner/Appointing Authority along with three other members. The appointment orders dated 23rd September, 2002 were issued to the appellants offering temporary appointment. In pursuance of the appointment orders, the app...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar Upadhyaya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC698
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.1.The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1999 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27991 of 1998, whereby the writ petition stands allowed and direction has been issued to the appellants herein to issue appointment letters to the petitioners as Excise Constable on the basis of the select list dated 29.8.1997.2. Brief facts of this case that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the appellants for selection of Excise Constable, the writ-petitioners-respondents, after having gone through the selection process, were duly recommended for appointment as per the select list dated 29.8.1997. Since no counter-affidavit had been filed to the writ petition controverting the averments made therein, treating the averments in the writ petition to be correct the learned Judge allowed the writ petition.3. It is not disputed by the appellants that the named of the writ -petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!Excise Commissioner and ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC695
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.1. This special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 7.10.2002 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14179 of 1999, whereby a direction had been issued to the present appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to declare the merit list prepared on the basis of the selection held under Advertisement No. 17701 and make appointment in accordance with law.2. The facts in brief are that Advertisement No. 17701 was issued by the Excise Department which was published in the Newspaper on 5th August, 1995 for making appointment of Excise Constables in various districts, including the District of Mirzapur which is in question. The writ petitioners (respondents herein), being duly qualified for such appointment, went through the selection process. Thereafter a merit list was prepared indicating the names of ten persons. The names of the writ petitioner were shown at Serial Nos. 3 and 5. Similar selection p...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2697
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The above appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-5-2002 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2001 convicting appellants Manish and Halke alias Gulab under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Kamta deceased, convicting appellants Manish, Halke alias Gulab, Laxman Singh alias Babuji, Babloo Darzi and Suraj under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 for murder of Bhanu Pratap and Kapoori Devi as well as under Sections 307 read with 149, I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder of Karan Singh and Katori Devi, further convicting appellants Manish, Halke alias Gulab, Laxman Singh alias Babuji, Suraj and Dheeraj under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. for committing murder of Guman and sentencing appellants Manish, Halke alias Gulab and Laxman Singh alias Babuji to extreme penalty of death and fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Century Laminating Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(183)ELT16(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 28-12-2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT')2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, M/s. Century Laminating Company, Hapur, Ghaziabad was manufacturer of decorative laminated rigid plastic sheets, industrial laminated plastic sheets, as final product and melamine formal dehyde resins, phenol formal dehyde resins for captive consumption. In their classification list submitted for the period 13-7-1981 to 28-2-1982, respondent No. 1 claimed that the above two resins were non-excisable as they were intermediate products. Assistant Commissioner, however, held that resins were liable to duty under items 15-A of Central Excise Tariff and demanded duty thereon. Said order was challenged in appeal and thereafter, matter went to Tribunal. Meanwhile Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Shafeeq Ahmad (Shri) Vs. Faisal Hafiz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC610
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Special Judge, Aligarh.2. The dispute relates to an accommodation, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001 referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed accommodation,'3. From the perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the petitioner filed a Suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages etc. against the respondents. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 79 of 1991.4. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Aligarh, the said S.C.C. Suit No. 79 of 1991 was decreed exparte. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 29th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. J.P. Cement
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST153(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These are two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as, 'the Act') directed against the order of Tribunal dated June 4,1992 relating to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The dealer-opposite party was a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and was carrying on business of cement. During the year under consideration, dealer had made the purchases of cement from M/s. Janki Prasad and Sons (Cement Division) Chowk, Lucknow, and M/s. Hindustan Automobiles, 97 Mall Road, Kanpur who were also registered firms and assessed to tax at Kanpur and Lucknow respectively. These above two firms stated to be consignment stockist of Maihar Cement, Satna, M.P. and Century Cement, Raipur, M.P. In the year 1987-88, dealer had made the purchases of cement to the tune of Rs. 3,94,47,938.74 and sold the same for Rs. 4,03,16,126. For the assessment year 1988-89 the total purchases from aforesaid two parties were for Rs. 3,2...
Tag this Judgment!Hajari Lal Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)AWC899
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th December, 1999 passed by Stamp authority Kaushambi and also the revisional order passed in revision preferred against the said order dated 3.6.2003.2. Facts forming background to the challenge are that petitioner purchased plot No. 117 admeasuring 11 biswa 19/25 Dhoor situated in village Jodhlilwar Pargana and Tehsil Chail district Kaushambi and plot No. 330 admeasuring 3 biswas, 9, 1/10 Dhoor situated in village Faridpur Sulempur Pargana and Tahsil Chail district Kaushambi from one Kishan Lal resident of Sulempur. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that Kishan Lal sold off his entire share in the land in dispute and petitioner paid stamp duty after assessing valuation thereof in accordance with law.3. From a perusal of the report of Lekhpal it is clear that the land in dispute are situated on the boundaries of two villages. It is also not disputed that one of the village, namely, Jodhlilwar is a non-residential ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »