Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)20; 1994CriLJ1491
ORDERJ.P. Semwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-6-1991, passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application (88 kha) of the accused-applicant,2. The accused applicant and one Raju moved an application 88 kha, on 12-6-1991, before the lower court, praying that their trial be separated from other co-accused and be transferred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. It was also prayed that suitable orders be passed for holding an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the said court itself as contemplated under Section 5, read with Section 20/32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Affidavit and papers in support of proof in regard to age, were also filed. Authorities were cited on behalf of the revisionist before the lower court. The lower court considered the authorities cited on behalf of the revisionist and came to the conclusion that there was no question of separating the case or holding an enquiry, because when in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All126
ORDER1. These are two petitions arising out of the same matter. As such, they are consolidated to be taken up for disposal by a common order as assented to by the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Matrix of the facts is that Majid Ali, petitioner is Writ Petition No. 15312 of 1992, instituted a suit, it being suit No. 88 of 1988, in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Gorakhpur for the relief of eviction of the petitioner, Qazi Nemat Ullah from the suit premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits. The suit ended in being decreed ex parte by means of the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1988 as a consequence of which, the decree holder was put in possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree, on6-11-1989. An application under p. 9, R. 13 C.P.C. came to be filed by petitioner Qazi Nemat Ullah on 10-11-1989 seeking recall of the aforesaid decree granted ex parte. The application was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside by means of the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2570
Surya Prasad, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1979 passed by the then learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Session Trial No. 149 of 1976 State v. Shri Ram, convicting the appellant-accused under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentencing him to six years rigorous imprisonment.2. The dacoity in question was committed in the night intervening 9/10th December, 1975. The appellant-accused Shri Ram was arrested on 6-1-1976. He was put up for identification in the test parade on 2-3-1976. There was occurred a delay of 56 days in holding the test identification parade. It is on the basis of all this that the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused has vehemently argued that this delay casts doubt as to the genuineness of the identification parade and therefore, the appellant-accused is entitled to be acquitted for this reason alone. He has, for this purpose, placed reliance upon 'Soni v. State of U.P.', reported in (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All72
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation authorities by whichthe claim of respondent No. 4 has been accepted regarding his 1/2 share in the disputed khatas.2. The parties are related to each other as given in the following pedigree. Elan | Shital | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P | Ram ---------------- Bakshi | | | Parsan | | | Ganesh | | | Bodi | | | Mahadeo | Gaji | ------------------------------------- Rampher | | Angnu ------------------------------------- Raja Ram | Sita Ram | Jokhu3. The dispute relates to two khatas namely, Khata No. 215 and Khata No. 220 situate in village Noorpur, Pergana Sikandara district Allahabad. Even prior to the start of the consolidation operation in the village in question, there was litigation between the parties and their predecessors-in-interest regarding Khata No. 215. In the year 1958 Raja Ram and Sita Ram filed suit under S. 229B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD436(All.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively are taken together for the sake of convenience since they relate to the same assessee and common issues are involved.2. In ITA No. 2117 (All.)/1990, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT (A) has erred in treating the subsidy received to the appellant from Government of India under a specific scheme Janta Cloth Scheme of the Government as revenue receipt. 3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the claim of exemption under Section 10(17B) in respect of subsidy received to the appellant from Government. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 10(2) and 10(23BB) of the Income-tax. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of shortage of silk yarn amounting to Rs. 67,934. 6. That the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(All)34
ORDERDR. O. N. TRIPATHI, A. M. :These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively are taken together for the sake of convenience since they relate to the same assessee and common issues are involved.2. In ITA No. 2117 (All) /1990, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee :'1. That, the appellate order is contrary to law & facts.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the subsidy received by the appellant from Government of India under a specific scheme, Janta Cloth Scheme of the Government as Revenue receipts.3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of exemption under S. 10(17B) in respect of subsidy received by the appellant from Government.4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim for exemption under S. 10(2) and 10(23BB) of the IT Act.5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of shortage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3866
A.P. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged his detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act). The matter was earlier heard by a Bench of two-Judges when one of the Hon'ble Judge while inter-preting Sections 3 and 5 of the Act held the impugned detention order illegal while the other Hon'ble Judge upheld the detention order. The petitioner's contention was that since the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary of the Central Government and not by the Central Government and under Section 5(a) the place of detention could only be specified by the 'appropriate Government' viz. the Central Government and not by its officer thus order by the Joint Secretary is illegal and void. The matter was referred to the third Hon'ble Judge who felt it appropriate that the matter be heard by a Full Bench and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice thereafter constituted this Full Bench. Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All298; (1992)2UPLBEC1435
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. S. K. Saraf and has prayed that the said committee should be restrained from going into the matter of use of unfair means by the petitioner in the spring semester of B.E. II Year (Electrical) of 1986 and further relief, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.2. It is useful to detail out the facts relevant for the purposes of decision of this writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time was a student of B.E. (Elec.) III Year of the University of Roorkee. Her case is that she has a brilliant academic record. She is said to have passed I Year examination and the Autumn Semester examination of II Year. After the declaration of the result of B.E. (Elec.) II Year Spring Semester some students of B.E. (Elec.) III Year out of heart burning and jealousy are said to have submitted a representation to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering allegi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(1992)DMC374
B.L. Yadav, J.1. The defendant-appellant, has filed the present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and order dated 18.5 90 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. CaseNo. 25/89 rejecting her restoration application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short the Act) under Article 123 of the Act the period of limitation to set aside an ex-parte decree was 30 days from the date of decree, or where summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The application for restoration was filed by the appellant (the wife) against the ex-parte decree dated 30.5.89 passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial case No. 65 of 1988 (Mahesh Sharma v. Smt. Deep Mala Sharma) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting ex-parte decree for divorce in favour of the respondent (the husband) This restoration application was filed under order 9 rule 13 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ672All
M.L. Bhat, J. 1. The prescribed authority, respondent No. 1, appears to have granted back wages on account of wrongful deductions from the wages of the respondents No. 2 to 9 under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act by his order dated 19.10.1981, which is impugned in this writ petition.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are briefly stated. The respondents No. 2 to 9 were working as Safai Karamchari with the petitioner. It is stated that the age of superannuation in the municipal services is 60 years. The respondents No. 2 to 9, according to the petitioner, were retired after the completion of age of 60 years. The respondents were retired with effect from 21.4.1979 and this order was passed on 28.4.1979, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. These respondents are said to have filed representations before the petitioner protesting against their retirement is in their opinion these respondents had not reached the age of superannuation. Their ...
Tag this Judgment!