Allahabad Court May 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.
Nankoo and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4536
Mukteshwar Prasad, J. 1. Two accused Nankoo and Badri have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-5-1995 passed by Sri Abhimanyu Kumar the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat whereby he convicted the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac. In default in payment of fine , they were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for an additional period of one year.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 12-11-1992 S. I. Babban Singh accompanied by H. C. Khayali Ram and constable Ram Bali were returning to the police station Musha Nagar after investigation and enquiry in village Pulandar. When the police party reached the culvert built on canal, two persons were seen coming to Pulandar. On seeing the police personnel, they accelerated their steps. On suspicio...
Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT605(All)
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of CEGAT dated 23-12-2002, copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition.2. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act and hence we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that in tax matters, there should not be any short-circuiting of the alternative remedy under the statute.4. It is well settled that when there is an alternative remedy ordinarily writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked. This principle applies with greater force regarding tax proceedings. As observed by the 'Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa : [1983]142ITR663(SC) 'Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provi...
Shakti NaraIn Singh Vs. Anoop Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2046; (2004)3UPLBEC2444
M. Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order. By that order the plaintiff Anoop Singh has been permitted to operate the contract of Tehbazari granted to him by Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra, district Banda.3. It has been pointed out by Sri P. K. Gupta learned counsel for the appellant that the contract in favour of Anoop Singh was granted without advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation. On the other hand Sri W. H. Khan learned counsel for Anoop Singh stated that the auction was held about six times but since no one turned up hence it was granted on a mere application to Anoop Singh.4. It is well-settled that public contracts are not largesse and ordinarily must be granted after advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation in which the date, time and place of th...
Kanpur Agra Transport Company and ors. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2127
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for the quashing of the judgment dated 1.9.1986 passed by the prescribed authority under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Appellate order and judgment dated 15.7.1987 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, allowing the release application of the landlord, respondent No. 1 under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Respondent No. 1 in his application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, stated that he became the owner and landlord of the premises No. 79/7, Latouche Road, Kanpur, vide a registered sale deed dated 20.8.1977. Respondent No. 1 contended that he had purchased the said premises for his residential and business purposes on the assurance given by the petitioners that they will vacate the premises in question, as they had shifted their entire transport business to the Transport Nagar and did not require the premises in question ...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Amarjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All335; 2004(4)AWC3134
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 were the owners of the premises No. 79/7 Lathouche Road, Kanpur Nagar. They had appointed the defendant No. 13, Bharat Property Dealers, as the auctioneer to sell the entire property No. 79/7 in seven different parts. The auctioneer advertised the seven parts of the premises for sale through an auction. Part one of the premises in question was put to auction on 23-6-1977. The plaintiffs bid of Rs. 40,000/- was the highest and was accepted by the auctioneer. A sum of Rupees 1000/- in cash and a sum of Rs. 9,000/- by a cheque was paid by the plaintiff on the spot and a receipt was issued to the plaintiff. A sale certificate dated 23-6-77 was issued by the auctioneer in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 were required to obtain the requisite permission from the prescribed authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and...
Barkhu and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All418; 2004(4)AWC3175
ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent. Nobody is present on behalf of the private respondents.2. Petitioner's father had filed Original Suit No. 219 of 1982, Tamai v. Smt. Prabhawati and Ors., only with one relief i.e. cancellation of the registered sale-deed.3. In the said suit written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant and it was contended that the suit as filed was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.4. The Munsif framed an issue in that regard and vide order dated 10th December, 1986 held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the said suit. Against the said order Defendant No. 2 filed a revision, which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 63 of 1987. The revision filed by the defendant has been allowed and it has been held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. an...
Ram Prahlad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3518
A.N. Varma, J.1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 9.4.2002, passed by the opposite party No, 2, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby he has been reverted to the post of Chakbandi Karta and also an adverse entry has been awarded. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the same has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner having not been held guilty of charges No. 1 and 2. the opposite party No. 2 without affording him an opportunity of being heard, held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved and thereafter passed the impugned order of punishment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the present writ petition are as follows :The petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal in the year 1967 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Kanoongo in 1985. In 1990, he was promoted to the post of Assis...
Chandpur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: [2005]139STC528(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision arises out of penalty proceedings under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The penalty proceedings were initiated for making false representation by issuing the form C to the selling dealer by the applicant that it is authorised to make purchases at the concessional rate of tax. The applicant has been granted registration certificate both under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A copy of the registration certificate has been filed by the parties before this Court. In the said registration certificate which is effective from May 29, 1976, the dealer has been authorised to issue form C in respect of various items mentioned in the registration certificate. One of the items mentioned in the said registration certificate is at the Serial No. 20. Against the Serial No. 20 'machine tools' is mentioned. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the dealer to ...
U.P. Nursing Home Association and ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1404
M. Katju, J.1. This Contempt Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2004 in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. Sri A.P. Verma and Ors.2. We have already upheld that judgment of the learned Single Judge by a Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 320 of 2004, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., decided by us on 27.4.2004. We see no reason to take a different view from that judgment. In that judgment we have gone into great detail about the alarming and widespread malpractice of unauthorised medical practice (quackery) prevailing in the State of U.P., and we have agreed with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2004 with the slight modification which we have made in our judgment dated 27.4.2004.3. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel appeard for the appellans and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned...
Vijay Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC1898; (2004)3UPLBEC2463
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.4.2004.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant is sub-inspector of police in U.P. By the order dated 28.2.2004 he was transferred from District--Firozabad to the Government Railway Police. Against this order he filed a writ petition in which the impugned order was passed.4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner's transfer was stayed till 15.5.2004 in view of the Lok Sabha Elections in respect of which the Election Commission has enforced the model code of conduct.5. We see no infirmity in the impugned order. Obviously the petitioner cannot insist on remaining at the place of his posting forever. He is on a transferable post, and transfer is an exigency of service vide B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karanataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 ; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532; Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Union of In...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »