Allahabad Court March 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.
Ashiq Beg Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3549
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal arose from an order and judgment passed by Spl./Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 194 of 1988. By this judgment the appellant was convicted under Section 19 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6800/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to serve out a sentence of one year R.I.2. Brief facts of this case are that Ashiq Beg son of Wajid Beg was granted a licence for 15 acres of land for cultivation in village Baibaha, P. S. Katra, district Shahjahanpur. He cultivated opium, according to the prosecution, over 13 acres of land (.13 hectare). According to Section 19 of the Opium Act as well as N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 he was required to deposit entire produce of opium with the Government through district Opium Officer. He failed to do so and thereby was prosecuted under Section 19 of N.D.P.S. Act. The licence was granted to the appellant at a time when the N.D.P.S. Act was not in force. His licence was under the Opium Act....
Ram Sanehi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ153
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7-8-1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1989 convicting all the appellants under Sections 302 read with 34, IPC for committing murder of Bahadur, under Sections 302 read with 149, IPC for committing murder of Pyare Lal and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life on each count. Appellants Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal were further convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year, while appellant Dhamidhar was further convicted under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :-A few years before the occurrence of this case, Umrao, father of appellant Ram Sanehi was murdered. Bahadur deceased was prosecuted for said murder. Pyare Lal deceased, father of Bahadur deceased, was d...
Hanif Khan Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC12
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition. Petitioner on 18th June, 1973 filed application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute. In Para 1 of the writ petition it is stated that it was actually given on rent to him by landlord-respondent No. 4 w.e.f., 1st July, 1973. It appears that the matter of allotment remained pending for five years and on 30th June, 1978 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, allotted the building in dispute to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 had filed allotment application on 24th June, 1977. In between petitioner's allotment application and order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 3, Section 14 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972, had been amended w.e.f., 5th July, 1976 and tenancy without allotment prior to the said amendment had been regularised. Against order dated 30th June, 1978, petitioner filed revision which dismissed against which petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 10357 of 1979. The said writ petition was allowed on 16th August, 1982 vide A...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Mehtab Chand Panna Lal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(All.)470
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 11th Feb., 1995, for the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. This appeal is filed on five effective grounds of appeal which raise two issues, therefore, we take them separately for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel or the assessee and gone through the material available on record. "1. That, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 1,47,150 made by the AO under the head 'Raffu'; designing; polishing and 'Rangai' without properly appreciating the fact discussed in the assessment order justifying the disallowances and only on the ground that no such disallowance was made in earlier years, as such, assessment year is independent and the principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) while deleting the above disallowances ...
Hem Chandra JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1853
M. Katju, J.1. These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs Lucknow dated 11.11.2003, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. The petitioners were issued a show cause notice dated 5.12.2002 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. In this notice it was alleged that acting on the basis of some information, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Lucknow and Varanasi reached Mughal Sarai, Railway Station along with two independent witnesses on 7.6.2002 at about 7.45 a.m. and Intercepted two persons travelling by North East Express Train. These two persons revealed their names as Sanjeev Agarwal and Nirmal Jain. They were served with a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the effect whether they would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, in response to which they requested that they should b...
Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs. R.K. Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2414
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11th September, 2003 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in its contempt jurisdiction.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is a complete code, no appeal could be held to be maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules.3. Before we take up this question for consideration, it would be fit and proper that we must decide whether a contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act is maintainable in law. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act shall not lie against an order passed in a proceeding for contempt except against any ...
Anil Kumar Chauhan Vs. the State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3557
ORDERMukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This revision by the accused is directed against the order dated 24-9-85 passed by the then Special Judge (DAA), Mainpuri in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14 of 1984, State v. Anil Kumar whereby learned Judge summoned the accused-revisionist to face trial under Section 392, IPC and issued warrant of arrest against him.2. In brief the facts of the case giving rise to this revision are as under :An FIR was lodged by Ram Babu, opposite party No. 2 at police station Khairgarh, District Mainpuri on 5-10-84 at 10-15 a.m. and the local police registered a case at Crime No. 178 of 1984 under Section 392, IPC against the revisionist. It was alleged that on 3-10-84 at about 12.00 noon, Anil Kumar arrived at the door of the informant used abusive language to him and took away his buffalo forcibly. The case was investigated by the police; and after completing investigation the I.O. submitted steal report.3. After submission of the final report, a protest petition was filed b...
Asha Ram and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4470
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Six persons, namely, Asha Ram, Magan, Chandrika, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam were tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment and order dated 15-12-2001, the learned Judge acquitted Magan, Ram Chhattar, Shiv alias Shiv Prasad and Ghan Shyam on all the counts but convicted and sentenced Asha Ram and Chandrika in the manner stated hereinafter :-- (i) Under Section 147, I.P.C. to undergo six months' R.I. (ii) Under Section 148, I.P.C. to undergo one year's R.I.; and (iii) Under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment. The learned Judge directed the sentences of Asha Ram and Chandrika on all the counts to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences Asha Ram and Chandrika pr...
Wg. Cdr. K.P.K. Ghose Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)32; [2004]268ITR260(All)
Ghanshyam Dass, J.1. By means of this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions are being referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 30,000 being in the nature of prize for caption writing is taxable in the hands of the assessee or not ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation of the Tribunal that the same receipt is in the nature of income is correct or not ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the said receipt of Rs. 30,000 is covered by the definition under Section 2(24)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not and whether the same is taxable in the hands of the assessee or not ?' 2. The relevant facts in brief may be stated as follows :The assessee participated in the contest of Bombay Dyeing and ., Bombay, for caption writing by completing a sentence praising Bombay Dyeing fabrics in a few words and was adjudged for a...
Dharmendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Telecom District Manager and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1846
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner claims that he was appointed and posted as computer operator in the office of respondent No. 1 and continued to work as such upto 31.5.2001 but thereafter he has not been paid his salary. He had earlier approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad for redressal of his grievances. The Original Application No. 1159 of 2002 was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 22.10.2002, with the direction that the Telecom District Manager, Mau, respondent No. 1, shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to his grievance within a period of one month. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 1 who by his order dated 12.11.2002, rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition with other ancillary prayers regarding regularisation of his services and payment of salary.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »