Allahabad Court August 2011 Judgments

Gopi Chand Soni and Another Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appell ...

Court: Allahabad

1. This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs act, 1962 (the Act, in short) is directed against the order of the Member, Technical, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.10.2005 by which he has partly allowed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise dated 4.11.1999, dismissing the appeal against the order of the Joint Commissioner, Customs Lucknow for absolute confiscation of 559.700 grams of 9 pieces of gold valued at Rs.2,23,880/- seized on 16.6.1999, in exercise of his powers under Section 122 of the Act. By the same order the Joint Commissioner, Customs also ordered confiscation of Maruti Van No.UP 53D 2052 under Section 115 (2) of the Act, at the same time giving option to redeem the Maruti Van on payment of fine amount to Rs.15,000/-. The Commissioner also imposed penalty on the appellants of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively under Section 112 of the Act. The Tribunal in its order dated 10.10.2005 under appeal has...

Smt. Manju Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

S.C. Agarwal, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.7.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in criminal case no.157 of 2011 (Manju Devi Vs. Santosh and others) whereby the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner has been rejected. (Annexure no.5). In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli alleging therein that on 6.5.2011 at about 7:30 p.m., when Rinku @ Dharmendra Tiwari, son of the petitioner, was returning home from his fields, the accused Santosh, Tribhuwan and other persons named in the application, surrounded Rinku @ Dharmendra Tiwari and threatened him with death. Rinku @ Dharmendra Tiwari ran towards his house and hid himself in the room. Santosh armed with country made pistol and Tribhuwan armed with licensed gun opened fire ...

Surendra Nath Vs. Smt. Chandrawati and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012AIR(NOC)293

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is plaintiff's Second appeal. O.S. no.241 of 1971 was instituted by the plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.5.1952. The suit was dismissed by IIIrd Additional Munsif, Deoria on 6.12.1973. Civil Appeal no.48 of 1974 was also dismissed on 11.7.1975 by Civil Judge, Deoria, hence, this Second Appeal. Defendant respondent nos. 2 and 3, Purshottam and Smt. Rajpati are father and mother of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant respondent no.4 Dhruv Narain is his real brother. The immovable property in dispute belonged to plaintiff and defendant respondent no.4. Their parents i.e. defendant nos. 2 and 3 sold the property in dispute as their guardian on 28.5.1952 to defendant respondent no.1 Smt. Chandrawati for Rs.1943/- as on that date both of them were minors. Two years before i.e. on 14.4.1950 the said property had been purchased in the name of minors plaintiff and defendant no.4 by their father and mother respondent nos. 2 and 3. The...

Hazi Mohd. Yaseen Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ot ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2012AIR(NOC)212

Amitava Lala, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 02nd February, 2011, annexure No. -7 to the writ petition, as well as demand notice dated 19th January, 2011, annexure No. -8 to the writ petition, issued by the concerned Executive Engineer, respondent no. 2 herein, and further seeks direction upon the respondents to restore supply of electricity of the petitioner and also not to recover the amount in question from the petitioner in any manner including coercive process. Briefly stated facts, according to the petitioner, are that he is a consumer of the electricity when Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter in short called as the “Corporation”) is the licensing authority. Father of the petitioner obtained electricity connection of 75 HP (56.696 KW) in the year 1978. The meter was installed in the meter room of the petitioner and it was kept in the lock and key of the concerned Executive Engineer of th...

Smt. Tarannum Khatoon Vs. Branch Manager, L.i.C. of India Ghazipur and ...

Court: Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. We propose to dispose of the matter finally. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 1st May, 2008, passed by Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Varanasi and order dated 19th May, 2009, passed by Regional Manager, Kanpur (here-inafter referred to as 'Corporation'). By the order dated 1st May, 2008 the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation rejected the petitioner's claim under the insurance policy taken by Late Shahid Khan, husband of the petitioner. Subsequently order dated 19th May, 2009 was passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation rejecting the petitioner's representation, which was disposed of in pursuance of an earlier order of this Court dated 13th April, 2009 passed in writ petition no.63982 of 2008. The peti...

Ramji Pandey Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Others

Court: Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the award dated 02.08.2002 which has been enforced by publication on the notice Board on 06.02.2003.The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he was engaged w.e.f. 07.06.1994 on daily wage @ Rs. 12/- per day as clerk in the establishment of the respondents and has worked for 293 days in a period of 12 months till termination of his services on 29.03.1985.1985. The case of the employer before the Lower Court was that petitioner was engaged on need basis temporarily @ Rs. 12/- per day which came to and end on 07.06.1994 and that the workman had not put in continuance service of 240 days in a year as such provisions of Section 6 (n) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 were not applicable requiring the employer to pay notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc. The Labour court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence foun...

Shyam Kishore Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

RAJES KUMAR, J. The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee, who was serving in the Police Department he died on 10.12.1992. At that time, the petitioner was 9 years old. It appears that the mother of the petitioner moved an application in the year 1996 claiming the appointment of her son. It is informed by the authority concerned that whenever her son becomes major the claim will be considered. Though the petitioner became major in the year 2001 but he moved an application for compassionate appointment on 15.12.2008, the application has been rejected by the State Government on the ground that it has been moved beyond time after 17 years from the date of death of his father. It has also been observed that the mother of the petitioner is getting pension and there are other members of the family. The appointment on compassionate ground is made to meet the immediate financial crisis arising due to the death of the employee. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it was fou...

Chandra NaraIn Tripathi Vs. Kapil Muni Karwariya

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Pandey for the petitioner, Mr. K. R. Singh and Mr. S. C. Dwivedi for the respondent on the interlocutory application no. 294725 of 2009, moved under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The respondent has moved the aforesaid application for addition of new para 88 A to 88 I in the written statement and thereby wants to specify additional ground for showing that the proposer no.2 Pramod Kumar was not an elector, therefore, he was not competent to subscribe the petitioner's nomination for the election of the Member of the House of People from 51 - Phoolpur Parliamentary Constituency of district Allahabad, which was held on 16.4.2009. The petitioner and the respondent and other persons filed their nominations. The returning officer found the nomination of the petitioner as invalid on the ground that proposers Onkar Nath Tripathi, Rajesh Kumar, Tarun, Ashok Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar Dubey were not electors an...

Jagdish Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.01. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 3 and 4 and perused the record.02. Writ petition is directed against recommendation dated 24.2.2011 made by respondent no.2 recommending respondent no.6 for appointment on the post of Principal in Sri Ram Krishna Inter College, Vidya Mandir, Chandpur Patwadh, Azamgarh.03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vacancy for the post of Principal has occurred on 1.7.1998 and it was immediately requisitioned to the Commission. Admittedly the petitioner was not one of the two senior most teachers in the institution. The selection proceeding was challenged by some others before this Court on various grounds and entire bunch of the writ petitions was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2003 in leading Writ Petition No.11322 of 2002 but in appeal the Apex Co...

Suleman Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

This bunch of writ petitions has been filed by lessees of developed plots (for construction of residential houses)as per the separate tripartite deeds executed between the concerned petitioner, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (herein after referred to as UPSIDC) and M/s Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to Ansal). These petitions are a classic example of the manner in which the UPSIDC in collusion with the construction Company Ansal has created a situation, (a) for defrauding the public exchequer and (b) for mis-leading common person like the petitioners to believe that the Tripartite deed was first transfer of the property and so they were entitled to the benefit of reduced rate of stamp duty under the relevant Government order. The mis-representation has lead to a situation where huge demand towards stamp duty penalty along with interest has been raised against the petitioners under the orders impugned passed by the Stamp authorities under ...