Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1533
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, quashing of the impugned award dated 20.2.1997 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.3. The case of the petitioner U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Board), in brief, is that it was constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Respondent No. 2, Mani Ram, was employed in the petitioner-Board. His date of birth was recorded in his service record as 1.3.1931. He retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e.; 58 years from the post of High Pressure Welder. A certificate dated 24.10.1997 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Department of Supply through the competent authority/Director, National Test House, Alipore, Calcutta, containing the signatures of respondent Mani Ram countersigned by the Chief Inspector of Boil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-08-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2366
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu Sonu alias Ajai Vikram Upadhayay has impugned the order dated 31-5-2003, passed by Mr. Ram Kumar, District Magistrate, Sultanpur (opposite party No. 3) detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention, order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-5-2003, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 31-5-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the 3rd opposite party (District Magistrate, Sultanpur) to issue the impugned detention order against him, are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2). A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the Impugned detention order Is founded on a solitary C.R. namely, C.R. No. 163 of 2003, under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 7; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-19-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1066; (2004)1UPLBEC684
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the respondent No. 2, removing the petitioner from the post of Member of Ward No. 9 Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilkhuwa, district Ghaziabad.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was elected as a Member of said Nagar Palika in the election held on 23.11.1999 and had been working as a President of various Committees under the provisions of U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the Act 1916). As a President of the Committee, he had passed certain orders, and brought certain informations and unearthed several irregularities adopted by the employees of the Municipality, and in particular, he raised the grievance against respondent No. 5, the clerk of the Municipality for not maintaining the minutes book of the Board's meeting on 20.12.2000. On his complaint, an enquiry was directed against the respondent No. 5 by the Divisional C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-27-2004
Reported in : AIR2004All277; [2004]137STC399(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. These two writ petitions alongwith connected and similar writ petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment.2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, Senior Advocate, Sri Piyush Agarwal, Advocate, and other learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.3. By means of this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of the U. P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground inter alia that it is violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.4. The petitioner No. 1 in writ petition No. 251 of 2003 is a public sector corporation, being a Government of India undertaking. It has various units in the country, but in this case we are only concerned with its refinery unit at Mathura where the petitioner is manufacturing various petroleum products which are sold by the petitioner within and outside the State of U. P. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-28-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC959
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public sector company, and Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products as well as Sri R. P. Verma, a share holder in Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., to declare Section 6W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as constitutionally bad and invalid, violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enforce the provisions of Section 6W of the Act against the petitioners. The prayer No. 3 is for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 26.2.1987 published on 5.3.1987, by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1987 (between Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products and its workmen), and also the order of the State Government dated 29.9.1986 passed under Section 6W of the Act.2. The writ petition was heard and allowed, along with other connected petitions, by this Court on 28.3.1990. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-29-2004
Reported in : [2004]137STC430(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Both the above writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Piyush Agrawal and Sri Sanjay Pathak appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate-General and Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. These writ petitions have been filed for quashing the impugned notification dated February 27, 1998 (vide annexure 1 to the writ petition) insofar as the condition No. 1 in the said notification is concerned.4. The petitioners are public limited companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having their manufacturing units in Rewa in the State of Madhya Pradesh where the petitioners are carrying on the business of manufacturing of cement which is sold in several States.5. In para 5 of the petition it is stated that for the manufacture of cement in its factory at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh, the petitioners procure fly ash from the Thermal Power...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-29-2004
Reported in : 2004(173)ELT337(All)
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14-5-2003 (Annex. 10) passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter called the 'CEGAT', by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal against the orders dated 7-8-1998 and 24-11-1998 passed by the adjudicating authority.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner No. 1 claims that it manufactures Ayurvedic medicines since 1986 after obtaining the licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 hereinafter called 'the Act 1940' and the Rules framed thereunder, hereinafter called 'the Rules'. In September, 1987, the officers of the Central Excise department conducted investigation in the process of manufacturing of the products by the petitioner No. 1 as well as nature thereof. In 1988, dispute arose as to whether the products manufactured by petitioner No. 1 could fall within the category of Ayurvedic medicines or were in fact Cosmetics use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-13-2004
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(All.)473
1. ITA Nos. 762 & 763/All/1999 by the Revenue are directed against the common order of CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 18th May, 1999 in the case of both the assessees-respondents in respect of block period from 1st April, 1986 to 13th Feb., 1997, Both the assessees-respondents have also directed CO Nos. 14 and 15/All/2000 in both the departmental appeals.2. ITA Nos. 304 & 305/All/2002 by both the assessees are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dt. 14th Aug., 2002 passed under Section 158BC/154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. In both the cases of the assessees, undisclosed income was computed and thereafter it was bifurcated in the case of both the assessees percentage wise on the identical facts. Since all the matters relate to the same assessees on identical facts, therefore, all the matters were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order.4. All the matters were directed to be taken up for out of turn hearing vide order dt. 7th Oct., 2002 passed in St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-13-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3926
M.C. Jain, J.1. State of U.P. has lodged this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21-1-1998 passed by Sri M. A. Khan, the then Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1989. The four accused-respondents-Ajai Kumar, Shiv Swaroop, Anil Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sangeeta have been acquitted of the charges of Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused-respondent No. 3-Anil Kumar Gupta is the husband of the deceased-Poonam, whereas accused-respondent No. 1 -Ajai Kumar is the younger brother of the former. Accused-respondent No. 2 Shiv Swaroop is the father-in-law of the deceased-Poonam and the accused-respondent No. 4 Sangeeta is the sister of the husband of the deceased.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the decision of the appeal may be related. The incident took place in between the night of 6/7th June, 1988 in Mohalla Kambalwala Bagh within Police Station New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar and the report was lodged on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-17-2004
Reported in : AIR2004All329; 2004(2)AWC1855
A.K. Yog, J.1. Above First Appeal From Order under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (called 'the Act'), filed by Smt. Bimla Gaindhar Is against the judgment and order dated March 12th, 1996 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, deciding issue No. 3 ; viz., (whether a 'Hindu' is required to obtain a probate in the State of U. P. in case of a 'Will' in his favour?)2. Smt. Bimla Gaindhar (appellant before us) had filed a petition under Section 276 of the Act for grant of probate on the basis of purported Will, an unregistered document (paper No. 10A1 on original record).3. We are omitting to give other details as the same is not required for the purpose of deciding the issue in hand and for disposal of the present first appeal from order.4. According to the impugned Judgment and order dated March 12, 1996, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion, relying upon two single Judge reported decisions by the Bench of learned single Judge, Bhaiya Ji...
Tag this Judgment!