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.
Swastik Fragrances Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(169)ELT257(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24-2-2004 (Annex 4), passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an application of waiver of pre-deposit condition directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the duty demanded vide order dated 20-3-2002.2. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that appeal raises the question as to whether the value of the excisable goods include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, and the provisions of Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act provides that such an amount cannot be added in the value of goods. However, this aspect has not been considered at all while deciding the application of waiver of pre-deposit condition by the appellate authority.3. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal has placed a very heavy reliance on a judgment of this Court in I.T. v. Commissioner Appeals (Custom & Central Excise) in Writ Petition No. 1219 of 2003, decided on 23-10-2003, wherein this Co...
Uma Nath Singh Vs. Rama Shankar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1119
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Dilip Gupta, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against an order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23063 of 2000.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent regarding maintainability of the special appeal challenging the aforesaid order.3. We have heard Mr. Shashti Nandan, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent and Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have also perused the materials available on record including the judgment and order of the learned Judge which is under challenge in this special appeal.4. According to Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent, since the Joint Director of Education in exercise of his appellate power had passed an order which was challenged in the writ petition, therefore, under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the C...
Kripa Shankar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1823
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This petition is directed against an order of the State Government dated 8.7.1984 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) by means of which the Controlling Authority (respondent No. 3) has set aside the order dated 20.7.1977 under Section 15 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, are that after the building plan applied by the petitioners was sanctioned, they constructed a house on forest land. Subsequently an application under Section 7-A of the Act was made by the Forest Department, inter alia, with the allegations that the plan had been got sanctioned by misrepresentation of facts. The Prescribed Authority after considering the matter came to the conclusion that none of the allegations made in the aforesaid application was true with the result he rejected the application vide its order d...
Sanjeev Nath Bhaskar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ187
ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, Advocate for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the opposite party No. 1.2. Notice to opposite party No. 2 was served but no counter affidavit has been filed and no counsel has put his appearance on behalf of contesting opposite party.3. Prayer in this application is for quashing of the charge sheet annexure No. 2 and the order dated 15-3-1999 passed by A.C.J.M. Mahroni. Facts of the case is, mining lease located at Pardhankuan in Pargana Sanpur District Jhansi (now Lalitpur) Tehsil Mahroni bearing cadestral survey No. 760 having an area 47.24 acres was sanctioned to Ishwar Industries Ltd. for a period of 20 years with effect from 1 -5-1964 for carrying out mining work. Renewal of lease was applied on 11-4-1983, which was rejected by the State Government, order of rejection was challenged before Delhi High Court and interim order was passed in favour of leasee on 8th August, 198...
Gas Authority of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sarvodaya Glass Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR127(All); 2004(3)AWC2185
M. Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2004 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The respondent runs a glass bangle manufacturing unit in Firozabad which is within the Taj Trapezium Zone. Respondent had applied for a gas connection which was given to him in 1996 by the appellant by agreement dated 17.09.1996 for running its industry. The initial contract was for supply of 3,500 S.C.M.D. natural gas which was later reduced to 1000 S.C.M.D. on the request of the respondent.4. However, it is alleged by the respondent that on the respondent's request the appellant again revised the gas contract quantity from 1,000 to 3,500 S.C.M.D. vide agreement dated 09.07.2002. Consequently, by letter dated 17.12.2002 the appellant asked the respondent to renew the letter of credit for Rs. 3,08,000 covering the quantity of 3,500 S.C.M.D. of natural gas per day. In pursuance of that letter the respondent...
Gaon Sabha-tappal Tehsil Khair District Aligarh and anr. Vs. Satya Deo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1735
Prakash Krishna, J. 1. This is defendants' appeal. It arises out of Original Suit No. 40 of 1976 filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of Plot No. 3838 area 11 Biswas in village Tappal and necessary correction to be made in the revenue record by deleting the revenue entry in favour of Ram Leela Maidan.2. The suit was instituted on the pleas, inter alia, that the father of the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid plot in a public auction held on 22.5.1935 and he became the owner of the said piece of land. It was earlier recorded as Nazool land and was put to auction by the State of U. P. Their father Sri Sukhram Sharma by a registered Izazatnaina dated 22.6.1938 permitted the Committee Ram Leela, Tappal, to organise annual Ramleela over 11 Biswas of land and the Ramleela Committee has been organising Ramleela since then. No right of ownership has been accrued to Ramleela Committee by holding Ra...
VipIn Krishna Garg and anr. Vs. Shyam Lal Garg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All386; 2004(2)AWC1865b
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from placing any obstruction in the right of passage on the land in dispute and to remove the obstruction on the disputed rasta. The plaintiff alleged that he had been using the said passage continuously for the last 30 years and that the rainwater was also flowing from the disputed piece of land for the last 30 years and that he had been allowed ingress and egress on the land in question for the last 50 years. The plaintiff alleged that in the last week of December, 1970, the defendant placed obstructions on the land in question as a result of which his right of passage to his shop was blocked. The flow of rainwater from his shop was also obstructed. The plaintiff requested the defendant to remove the obstructions. Since the defendant failed to remove the obstruction, the plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaint...
Param Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1781
M. Katju, J.1. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 4.10.1997 Annexure-5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to 'forward' the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for decision by the District Judge, Ghaziabad.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. In this case it appears that the award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.2.1992 and the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed only on 30.7.1996. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order as time barred. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court.4. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act states that every application under Section 18 shall be made :'(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice fro...
Maria Plasto Pack (P) Ltd. Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Financial Corpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All310; (2004)2UPLBEC1851
M. Katju, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 4.10.1994 Annexure 12 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 U.P. Financial Corporation to prepare a rehabilitation package of the petitioner and to submit it to the respondent No. 3 for placing it before respondent No. 4.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. We have carefully perused the writ petition and counter and rejoinderaffidavits. .4. The petitioner took a loan from the U.P. Financial Corporation and paid certain amount as stated in Paragraph 14 of the writ petition. In Paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that the Corporation disbursed a total of Rs. 9,19,600/-to the petitioner in a period of two years one month. The details as alleged by the petitioner are given in Paragraphs 14 to 20 of the writ petition which need not be repeated here. It is alleged by the petitioner that as a result of the disbursement sche...
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2506
D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 8.3.1991 and 9.3.1991 by which the services of the petitioners, who are class IV employees in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Aligarh, were dispensed with.3. The petitioners alleged that in July, 1990, they were appointed on different posts in class IV on daily wages in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Aligarh. It is further alleged that the posts were created by the Government vide its G.O. dated 20.3.1989 and, thus, by various orders dated 26.7.1990 issued by the Superintendent, Employees State Insurance Hospital, Aligarh, their appointments were regularised with effect from 1.8.1990. It is further alleged that in pursuance of a letter dated 27.2.1991 issued by Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Kanpur, to the Senior Medical Superintendent that as there were 13 surplus class IV employees in Agra region, steps should be taken so that all the 13 surplus ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »