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.
D.N. Agrawal H.J.S., Registrar (Listing), High Court and anr. Vs. Vino ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC2924
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned interim order of the learned single Judge dated 18.5.2004 by which the Registrar (Listing) of this Court has been directed to pay exemplary cost of Rs. 500 because some affidavit was not available on the record.3. Since the facts are not in dispute it is not necessary to call for a counter-affidavit.4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.5.2004 shows that the learned single Judge was unhappy because the affidavit dated 5.4.2004 filed by the petitioner in the Registry was not available on the record. While we fully share the concern of the learned single Judge that the documents filed in this Court should as soon as possible be placed on the record, we cannot approve of the order directing imposition of exemplary cost on the Registrar (Listing) as well as the other personnel of the Registry.5. It must be remembered that the Registrar General, Registrar (Listing) etc. of t...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. British India Corporation Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST265(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order dated December 19,1992 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 69 of 1984 for the assessment year 1975-76. The following two questions of law have been raised in the memo of revision:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that (1) coal ash is taxable at the rate of four per cent and is covered by the entry of coal including all its forms but excluding charcoal of Notification No. 5782, dated September 7, 1981 despite the fact that coal ash is an unclassified commodity and is taxed accordingly?(2) Cardigan and pullovers are taxable as woollen hosiery at the rate of five per cent despite the fact that aforesaid goods fall under the category of woollen goods which is taxable at the rate of 8 per cent?2. Regarding question No. 1 is concerned, I have considered this matter in great detail in Sales Tax Revision No. 1537 of 1992 Commissioner ...
Professor G.K. Rai Vs. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1691
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.3.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the Chancellor and the reference dated 11.12.2003, made by the Executive Council (Annexure-3), to refer the matter to the Chancellor, disagreeing with the recommendations of the Selection Committee.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in various departments of the University of Allahabad, candidature of the teachers, i.e., Lecturers, Readers were considered for grant of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme/Personal Promotion Scheme who had completed the requisite period of service. In the regular cadre of Professors, Readers, large number of vacancies existed. Advertisement was made to fill up the same. However, the Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order dated 10.9.2003, staying all selection and appointments through direct recruitment. While passing the order, the promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme were also stopped. On rep...
Ramji and ors. Vs. Chokat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All364; 2004(4)AWC2927
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale dated 17-12-1976 and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 13-5-1980 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The defendant No. 2 and 3 are the son-in-law of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are the brothers of the defendant No. 3. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 is the uncle of the plaintiff and that he had expressed a desire to sell the land for Rs. 15.000/- to the plaintiff. An agreement to sell dated 17-12-1976 was entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and, in consideration of the aforesaid agreement, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 by way of an advance and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. In the agreement, it was stated that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of 5 years. The plaintiff alleged that he was always ready and w...
Madhav Prasad Vs. Deputy Managing Director (P and S), S.B.i. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2604; (2005)ILLJ385All
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The main questions involved in this writ petition are :* Whether the charged officer is entitled to get the copy of the preliminary inquiry report and the correspondence in that regard or not.* Whether the charged officer is entitled for personal hearing before the appellate authority or not.* Whether the disciplinary/ appointing authority and the appellate authority are required to record detailed/ separate reasons, even if they agree with the findings of the inquiry report.THE FACTS2. The petitioner was employed with the State Bank of India (the Bank). At the relevant time, he was posted as the Branch Manager of Raja Ka Darwaja, Varanasi branch of the Bank (the concerned Branch). He was suspended on 8.11.1982 and was given a charge-sheet on 19.5.1983 levelling three charges (the first charge-sheet) (for the details of the charges see Endnote-1).3. The inquiry in pursuance of the first charge-sheet was conducted by Sri N, N. Srivastava. No witness was examined in ...
Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3536; (2005)ILLJ701All
Pradeep Kant and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh and Sri Vijay Jeet Lal Verma for the State.2. Record of the enquiry has also been produced before us.3. The short question canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was served with two charge-sheets but without giving him any opportunity to participate in the enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report, on the basis of which the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed.4. Initially the appointing authority, on consideration of the enquiry report and reply submitted to the show cause notice and the enquiry report by the petitioner, passed an order of minor punishment, namely, (i) no payment of salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period under which the petitioner remained under suspension ; (ii) stoppage of three annual increments temporarily ; and (iii) a censure entry to be recorded in his service book. This order was...
Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1707
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for declaring Section 161(b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, as ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned provisional assessment orders of house tax dated 23.11.2001 (vide Annexure-III to the petition) and for quashing the demand notices dated 6.12.2003, for assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03 form the petitioner (vide Annexure-II to the petition). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the citations in pursuance of the impugned demand notices (vide Annexure-IV to the petition).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is alleged in Para 7 of the petition that the petitioner is a sick unit and proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA) are pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruc...
Smt. Chandra Vasa Vs. Smt. Dulesari Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All350; 2004(4)AWC2930
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the cancellation of the will dated 2-2-83 executed by Smt. Muneshwari Devi bequeathing the entire property, etc. in favour of the defendant Smt. Chandravasa Devi. The plaintiff Smt. Duleshwari and the defendant are real sisters and their mother is the person, who had executed the will. The plaintiff alleged that the property was owned by her father Basdeo, who died about 25 years ago and upon his death, the entire property was inherited by her mother, Smt. Muneshwari Devi. It was alleged that the plaintiffs mother was an illiterate, rustic and a pardahnashin lady and had died on 25-6-1983 at the age of 75 years. The plaintiff alleged that she used to stay with her mother from time to time in order to help her out in her household affairs. Between October 1982 to May 1983, the plaintiff could not visit her mother, as she herself, was unwell on account of a shooting pain in her stomach, which was later on, diagnosed as appendicitis. Whe...
Dwarika Prasad Bajaj, (Since Deceased by L.R.) Vs. State of U.P. and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All368; 2004(4)AWC3108
ORDERArun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sandeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel for the State respondents.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah in case No. 18/1936/90-91 as also against the order dated 26th August, 1992 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No. 15 of 1992.3. Original suit No. 17 of 1930 (Lala Rameshwar Das v. Jai Narayan and Ors.) was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,999/-75 Anna 3 Paisa. The said suit was decreed by means of the judgment and decree dated 7th April, 1931 by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The operative portion of the said order, relevant for the purposes of the present controversy reads as follows :'Plff. claim for Rs. 26,999/12/3 is therefore decreed with costs and future interest pe...
Akhlaq Ahmad Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2777
S. P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The learned counsel representing the respondents has also been heard.3. Perused the record.4. The appellant has come up in this intra-court special appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him and thereby affirming the order passed by the District Judge, Etah, dated 29.11.1995 removing the name of the appellant from the list of approved candidates and dismissing him from service with immediate effect.5. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass.6. The appellant who was an approved candidate was appointed on purely temporary basis as a copyist in the Police Copying Department in the time scale of pay of Rs. 950-1,500 on a vacant post. In his appointment letter dated 4.11.1989 it was clearly indicated that his services were purely temporary and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »