Allahabad Court February 1997 Judgments
U.P. Financial Corporation Vs. Idrish
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas44(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This F. A. F. O. is directed against the impugned award dated November 20, 1996, passed by the trial court restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from realising Rs. 8,31,318 from the plaintiffs.3. The facts are that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement for taking a term loan with defendant No. 7, namely, the U. P. Financial Corporation (U. P. F. C.), and under the agreement the U. P. F. C. had granted a term loan of Rs. 92,000 to the plaintiffs and an additional term loan of Rs. 70,000 had been granted to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs defaulted, the U. P. F. C. issued a notice under Section 29 of the U. P. State Financial Corporation Act on January 2, 1986, and pursuant to that made an advertisement for sale of the assets of the plaintiff's unit, Star Agro, for the establishment of which the term loan was taken. Pursuant to the advertisement, the plaintiff's unit was sold to the highest bidder, viz., San-jay Kumar Jain, for Rs. 1,60,000 and p...
Tag this Judgment!Nagrath Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT71(All)
ORDERA. Chakrabarti, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shushil Harksali, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad as it has not been passed taking into consideration profit and loss account of the company and wrongfully showing a profit although profit and loss account shows actually a net loss of substantial amount. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that such wrong reading of the profit and loss account (wrongfully described in the impugned order as balance sheet) lead to the impugned order refusing total exemption of deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and reference has been made to another order by the same Tribunal in respect of the petitioner company (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner company was considered as sick unit and on that basis total exemption was granted though the claim therein was of an amount much larger than the amount involve...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Jeet Singh Khara Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas264(All)
1. Heard counsel for the appellant and Shri Saran, counsel for the respondent.2. The plaintiff is the Indian Overseas Bank, which filed a suit for recovery of a huge amount against the defendant-appellant. Pending the suit, the plaintiff-bank made an application for an ad interim injunction praying that the defendant-appellant be restrained from withdrawing the rent deposited by the plaintiff-bank in Suit No. 54 of 1990, filed by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff-bank was a tenant of the defendant-appellant, who filed Suit No. 54 of 1990 for recovery of rent, etc., and in that suit the defendant-appellant deposited rent in view of Order 15, Rule 5 as inserted by the U. P. State Amendment in the Civil Procedure Code.3. The submission of counsel for the defendant-appellant is that in view of the second proviso to Rule 5(3), Order 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendant-appellant could be asked to furnish security before withdrawing the rent deposited in Suit No. 54 of 1990 and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bindu Sharma Vs. Ram Prakash Sharma and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All429; II(1998)DMC357
1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful wife (petitioner-appellant) seeking annulment of her marriage with respondent No. against the judgment and decree dated 13-2-1991 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bareilly.2. The annulment of the marriage is sought under Section 12(1) clause (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act, for short), which, in so far as the relevant for the purpos of this case, reads that any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on the ground that the consent of the petilioner, was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.3. Section 12 describes the circumstances rendering a marriage voidable. A coidable marriage remains valid and binding and continues to subsist for all purposes unless a decree is passed by the court annulling the same on any of the grounds, mentioned in t...
Tag this Judgment!Mishri Lal Gupta and Co. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas796(All)
1. Heard counsel for the plaintiff and V. M. Sahai, counsel for the defendants.2. By an order dated January 22, 1996, annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, the defendant-bank was directed to renew the cash credit limit agreement of the plaintiff for one year more, the plaintiff was directed to render full and regular account of transactions of sale to the defendant-bank and also it is said in the impugned order that the defendant will operate the plaintiff's account in accordance with rules and that theplaintiff will make repayment to the defendant-bank in accordance with rules.3. Thereafter, an application was made by the defendant-bank for recalling the order dated January 22, 1996, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the directions as contained in the injunction order dated January 22, 1996, which was passed after hearing both the parties by the court.4. Upon hearing counsel for the parties, the court passed the impugned orders dated November 13, 1996, settin...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ1000All
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been tiled challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court, De-hradun dated April 26, 1991 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Respondent No. 2 claims to he an employee of the petitioner who had been employed from 1986 to 1994 i.e. for about eight years, after which he was not allowed to work. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The respondent No. 2 filed a written statement alleging that Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had been violated and his termination of service was arbitrary. Some representatives of the employer, i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition, appeared before the Labour Court on February 7, 19% and was granted 20 days time to file written statement but no written statement was filed and hence the award was given ex-parte on April 26, 1996, Subsequently a review application dated August 2, 1996 was filed which was rejected by order dated November 7, 1996, hence this writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Pranab Baruah Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All338
ORDER1. This is an unfortunate proceeding involving admission of a student in M.D. (Ayurved) Course in Banaras Hindu University.2. Admittedly, provisional admission of the petitioner was decided in the meeting held on 17-7-1996. There was no complaint of petitioner's laking in any requisite qualification. By letter dated 1-8-1996 the petitioner was informed that his provisional admission was kept in abeyance 'till the clarification regarding caste certificate submitted by you is received from the main Registry of this University.'3. Approaching the respondents, the petitioner did not get any decision and so this writ petition was filed. Opportunity granted by this Court to the University authorities for a decision by the Admission Committee was not availed of and the matter was postponed recording that since the matter had gone into the Courts of law it is fell that the decision of the Court should be awaited: Then, this Court took up the matter for Consideration and afterargument by t...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Pratap Singh Vs. Chairman, Oil Selection Board, Lucknow and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All286
ORDERR.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and learned counsel for the parties agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that. Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) published an advertisement on 10-5-1993 inviting applications for appointment as dealer for retail sale of petrol and diesel oil etc. at Saidpur, District Ghazipur. Petitioner Ajai Pratap Singh and respondent No. 5 Virendra Kumar along with many others made applications in response to the aforesaid advertisement. In this advertisement along with other conditions it was also provided that gross annual income of applicant and his spouse and dependent children put together should not exceed Rs. 50,000/- in the last financial year. The applications after through scrutiny were forwarded to the Oil Selection Board. The candidates were interviewed on 26-6-1994 and after ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinaya Chandra Pandey and anr. Vs. Chancellor, University of Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All173; (1998)3UPLBEC1675
R.K.K. Trivedi, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the legality and validity ofthe appointment of respondent No. 6 Shri Suresh Chandra Srivastava as Vice-Chancellor of University of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the University). Initially, writ petition was filed challenging the meeting of Executive Council of the University held on 3-3-1994. However, subsequently an amendment application was filed which was allowed by this Court. Thereafter relief No. 1 was substituted by another relief challenging proceedings of the Executive Council dated 3-3-1994 in respect of item No. 50 of the agenda and also challenging the decision of respondent No. 1 dated 24/26-5-1994 by which the reference made by petitioners under Section 68 of U.P. Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected as not maintainable. Prayer 1 -A has been made for writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto questioning ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shashi JaIn Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR682(All)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing the notices dated November 18, 1996, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, and also the notices dated September 6, 1996, issued under the same provision for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed income-tax returns for all these years in time and she was assessed to tax under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act but subsequently notices have been issued under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of the valuer's report even when the valuer did not give opportunity of being heard before making the report. The valuer's report is with respect to the investment in thehouse constructed by the petitioner. In our view, no notice was required to be given before the issuance of notice under Section 148. We are not impressed with the contention that the impugned notices have been issued by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »