Allahabad Court April 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.
Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All44
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is yet another case which has come up before us where the land of the petitioners has been taken over by the Government without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act or any other statutory enactment.3. Article 300A of the Constitution states :'No person shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law'.The petitioners have alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that they are bhumidhars of the land in question. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that the land in question has not been acquired or requisitioned by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1947 and no notification was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or other enactment. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that similar type of action of taking possession of the land of agriculturists without acquiring t...
In Re: Bharat Explosives Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]58SCL370(All)
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present company application has been filed under Section 391(1) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by M/s. Bharat Explosives Limited, a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 9 K.M. Lalitpur Jhansi Road, Lalitpur-284403 (UP) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferee Company').2. It is, inter alia, prayed that the convening of meeting of the secured creditors of the Transferee Company meeting of the shareholders/members of the Transferee Company and the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the Transferee Company be dispensed with.3. It appears that a Scheme of Amalgamation is proposed for the amalgamation of M/s. Bulk Explosive Limited, having its Registered Office at House No. 45, Gali No. 2, Ambedkar Vihar, near Harijan Basti, Sector 37, NOIDA (U.P.) hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferor Company' with the Transferee Company. Copy of the proposed Scheme of Am...
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)556; [2004]267ITR461(All); (2004)2UPLBEC1833
M. Katju, J.1. These two writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner is the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bulandshahr, which has been constituted under the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dt. 4th March, 2004 and 15th Oct., 2003 requiring it to furnish income-tax returns for the asst. yr. 2003-04 and also to show-cause why penalty be not imposed for not furnishing the returns in time.3. The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a local authority and is hence exempt from income-tax under s. 10(20) of the IT Act.4. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that earlier for the asst. yr. 1978-79 an assessment order was passed against the petitioner by the ITO, A Ward, Bulandshahr, on 25th May, 1982 against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), Meerut, who by order dt. 6th Sept., 19...
Smt. Sundari and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All293
ORDERTarun Agarwala, J. 1. One Bachai (hereinafter referred to as the judgment Debtor) had taken a loan from Raja Ram (hereinafter referred to as the Decree holder) Since the loan was not repaid, Raja Ram filed Suit No. 261 of 1966, which was decreed by judgment dated 13-12-1966. The appeal of Bachai was dismissed. Thereafter, the decree was put in execution. Before the property of the judgment debtor could be attached in execution proceedings, the judgment debtor sold his property by sale-deed dated 28-4-1967 to Ganga, plaintiff and to Basdeo, defendant No. 1. By order dated 29-5-1967, the property in question was attached in execution proceedings. The plaintiff filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the order of attachment was illegal. The objection of the plaintiff was rejected by the executing Court vide order dated 12-7-1969. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff Ganga filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedu...
Ram Subhav Yadav Vs. Joint Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2436
D.P. Singh, J. 1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. This petition is directed against an order dated 7.7.2001, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, whereby the suspension order passed against the respondent No. 5 has been disapproved and also a direction was issued that the respondent No. 5 should be appointed as officiating/ad hoc Principal of the institution.4. Panchayat Inter College, Khanpur Sarai Meer, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as an institution) is a duly recognized and aided institution imparting education uptil Intermediate level. It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed as a untrained L. T. grade teacher on 12.7.1971 whereafter he completed his B.Ed. examination and his services were approved in 1973. The respondent No. 5 was initially appointed as a L. T. grade teacher on 1.7.1969 and his ser...
Bhola Rai Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2524
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th May, 1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, allowing Revision No. 1575, setting aside orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and making alteration in the chaks of parties.2. Dispute relates to the allotment of chaks on land situated in Village Kuandev Chandpatti, Pargana and Tehsil Sagari, district Azamgarh. Petitioner is chakholder of chak No. 133 and contesting opposite party is chakholder of chak No. 199.3. Learned counsel for petitioner raised a number of arguments including that the impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed ex parte ; plot No. 838 petitioner's original holding was wrongly taken out by Deputy Director of Consolidation by making chak in triangular shape ; Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation without pointing out any illegali...
Shobh Nath and anr. Vs. District Manager, Food Corporation of India an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR659]; (2004)3UPLBEC2381
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.6.2002 passed by Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, Respondent No. 2, whereby the application of Petitioner No. 2 Jai Ram for appointment of his son Shobh Nath, Petitioner No. 1, has been rejected. The petitioners have thus prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 14.6.2002 and also for a direction to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, Respondent No. 2, to appoint the Petitioner No. 1 on the post of Handling Labour (Loader) in accordance with the terms of the Circular dated 3.7.1996 issued by the Food Corporation of India.2. Having heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and on careful perusal of the record and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of ...
Udai Raj Yadav and ors. Vs. Ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1558
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, holding brief of Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. Original Suit No. 471 of 1980 was filed by four petitioners, namely-Lal Bahadur Yadav, Bajrangi Yadav, Maheep Yadav and Shiv Nath Yadav against seven respondents, namely-Udai Raj, Brijraj Yadav, Ramratan Yadav, Ramjatan Yadav, Shivjatan Yadav, Rampujan and Harendra. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit, read as follows :'(a) Adalat say bajariya degree hukm imtahal dwani prativadigan ko agya di jai ki ve kabja dakhal ham vadigan par zameen nijai mal uspar isthit chijon ke mana va muzahim na ho aur na uspar kisi prakar ka swatwa kayam karen aur na apney makan ka koi darwaja iss zameen par kayam karen aur na usse kisi prakar ki amdaraft karen maliyat dadarsi Moo. 200 hal kyonki maliyat ka 1/5 Moo. 200 sey kam hai.(b) Yahki agar daura...
Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(93)ECC633; 2004(170)ELT406(All)
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 relates to the imposition of penalty on the appellant.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1997 to 31.3.2000 it was paying duty under the compounded scheme as contemplated under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 8.8.2003 shows that central excise duty was to be paid by the appellant in accordance with the Rule 962P of the Central Excise Rules on the 10th day of every month. The appellant paid the duty for September and October 1999 on 5.11.1999 instead of paying it in September and October. Similarly, for the months of November and December 1999, the appellant paid the duty on 6.1.2000 instead of paying it by the 10th of the respective months.4. The Fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) ...
Gajanan Pandey Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1840
Dilip Gupta, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30th December1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting therepresentation dated 15th May 1998 filed by the petitioner clamingpromotion on ad hoc basis on the post of Lecturer in Civics in the D.A.VNarang Inter College, Ghughli District Mahrajganj (hereinafter referred toas the 'College') and for other consequential reliefs.2. I have heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedStanding Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri Ashok Khare,learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the L.T. Grade inthe College on 28th July 1974. The regular Principal of the College SriParshuram Mani Tripathi retired on 30th June 1993 as a result of which thesenior most Lecturer in the College Sri T.N. Rai became the OfficiatingPrincipal. On 13th April 1997 the Committee of Management passed a resolution promoting re...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »