Allahabad Court February 2004 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.
Prakash Chandra Mishra and anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1673
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is defendant's appeal. It arises out of a Suit No. 1301 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants directing them not to interfere in the plaintiffs' exclusive right of use and passage over the land described by letters and shown by red colour in the plaint map. It appears that the plaintiffs respondents filed an application for temporary injunction, which was granted by the trial court. On 12.12.1997 the plaintiffs respondents moved an application for withdrawal of the suit. A true copy of the said application has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit and is on Page 33 of the paper book. It has been stated therein that the plaintiffs presently want to withdraw the suit and that none of the defendants have appeared. In the relief clause the prayer for withdrawal of the suit was made. The Court fixed 7.1.1998 as it was the date fixed for appearance of the de...
Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. P.O., Central Government Ind ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR867]; (2004)IIILLJ56All
R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Ms. Rohma Hameed holding brief of Sri Yashwant Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.R. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi. In this petition order dated October 25, 1997 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute Case No, 4 of 1991 has been challenged.2. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage in view of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was deployed absolutely on casual basis for a limited period as a messenger from July 30, 1987 to March 9, 1988 by an order dated July 31, 1987 with the condition that such deployment was absolutely on temporary basis and could be ceased after the period of February 13, 1988. Such deployment was made on contractual basis for a limited period in the exigency of work and after coming ...
Raju Gupta Alias Rajeev Gupta Vs. Krishna Gopal Rastogi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2646
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by this Court on 6.2.2004 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the same was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The present revisionist who was defendant in the S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1993 was decreed ex parte on 15.7.1993. The defendant filed an application according to which when he acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree, he filed an application dated 27.5.1994 and deposited a sum of Rs. 48,126.64 as per requirement of proviso to Section 17(1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The trial court allowed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1994, decided on 31.10.1995 and the S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1993 was restored to its original number. The defendant preferred a written statement. The defendant therefore, in compliance of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act ...
Baij Nath and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3526
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. Four accused, namely, Baij Nath, Ram Bharose Lal, Kunwar Bahadur and Ram Raj, filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-4-1981 passed by Sri N.K. Maheswari, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur whereby he convicted the four accused under Section 412 of the Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of seven years.2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case were as under.3. P.W. 1 Quddus Khan, son of Nanhjoo Khan, a resident of Saraj Khargu, police station Malwan (Fathehpur) handed over a written report at police station Malwa on 15-9-1977 at 5.30 a.m. A case was registered at: crime No. 148 under Section 396, I.P.C. against Istiaq Ahmad alias Dhappi and three others. The informant alleged that he had two houses, old and new adjacent to each other in the village and in the night intervening 14/15 Sept. 1977 he was sleeping in the Chaupal of the house. The informants brother-in-law Sajid Ali a...
Ram Swaroop Tripathi Vs. Disciplinary Authority, Managing Director Bom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3415
ORDERN.K. Mehrotra, J,1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned suspension order dated 27.12.2003 as contained in Annexure-1.2. The petitioner is cashier-clerk in the Lucknow Branch of the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No. 1 is a scheduled bank registered as Co-operative Society under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and deemed to be registered under the Multi-Stat operative Societies Act, 1924 and' it comes within the meaning of the Sftate under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties had raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has referred a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. u. Padubidrt Pattabhtram Bhat (FB), AIR 1993 Bom 93. tn which it has been held that Multi-State Co- operative Bank registered under Maha...
Doaba Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(169)ELT258(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 25-8-2003, by which it had dismissed the application of the petitioner, affirming its earlier order dated 4-12-2002 by which it had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority.2. In the instant case, the appeal was dismissed with the observationthat by amendment in the Customs Act, the Appellate Authority did not havethe power to condone the delay of more than 30 days and admittedly the appealhad been preferred after expiry of more than 30 days, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rejected the appeal vide order dated 4-12-2002. Subsequently, petitioner preferred an application to recall that order, which has been dismissed byimpugned order. Hence this petition.3. If the statute provides for a period of limitation, and further maximum period for which the delay can be condoned, the authority can not extend the same....
Municipal Board/Nagar Palika Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2140
Arun Tandon, J.1.These are two writ petitions. One filed by State of U.P. and the other filed by the Municipal Board, Nagar Palika, Lalitpur. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 11th February, 1994, passed by the District Judge, Lalitpur. By means of the aforesaid order the District Judge, Lalitpur has allowed the Appeal No. 23 of 1992 filed as Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 27 Ors., holding thereunder that the proceeding initiated by the State against Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were barred by principles of res judicata, in view of the decision of the proceedings, which were initiated earlier by the Nagar Palika, Lalitpur, being Suit No. 25 of 1960, as also in view of the dismissal of the proceedings which were initiated by the State of U.P. itself, being Case No. 521-353 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages)...
Smt. Shamshad Begum Vs. Deputy Chief Medical Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2432
R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri H.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma. learned standing counsel for the State.2. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17.5.1989 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 Chief Medical Officer, Deoria. By consent of parties this writ petition is decided finally in view of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in 1976 at Primary Health Centre, Sukrauli, district Deoria on 7/16.2.1976 temporarily and in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry she was suspended on 29.4.1989 and without any inquiry or charge-sheet, her service was terminated by order dated 17.5.1989 by order simplicitor in the light of provision of U. P. Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (in short called 'Rules 1975').4. According to the counter-affidavit a news was published in...
Vishnu Dhar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3418; (2005)ILLJ803All
Pradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhra, JJ.1. Aggrieved by an order of termination from service, the petitioner preferred a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal in the year 1982.2. It was the case of the petitioner that the order of termination was not served upon him whereas in the written statement filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C.) it was categorically stated in para 10 that the order of termination has been sent to the petitioner through registered post dated 19.4.1968. In the counter-affidavit, the termination order was also filed. In the claim petition, the petitioner himself had alleged that he was given to understand that his services have been terminated by an order dated 30.4.1968 whereas actually the services were terminated by order dated 19.4.1968. The same was sent through registered post and the presumption was that the petitioner had received the same, the same having not returned unserved.3. In short, the c...
Satish Chand JaIn Vs. Ito
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN500(All)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The controversy involved in this case is that there is an assessment order against the petitioner-assessee against which appeal has been preferred. The assessee has moved an application under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the assessing authority for the interim relief and the same is stated not to have been decided as yet thus he moved an application before the appellate authority. The said application is also stated to be pending consideration before the appellate authority and in the meanwhile revenue authority has initiated recovery proceedings pursuant to the recovery certificate dated 5-12-2003 hence this petition.3. Without entering into the merits of the case and also considering the facts as to whether during the pendency of the application for interim relief under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee should have made an applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »