Allahabad Court May 1999 Judgments
Ram Pratap and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2049; (1999)2UPLBEC1452
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. Ram Pratap, Mahesh Prasad. Cyan Chand, all sons of Ramanand, resident of village Umarpur Niwa, Pargana and Tehsil Chail. district Allahabad, and Smt.Lakshmi Devi, wife of Onkar Nath.resident of village Umarpur Niwa,Pargana and Tehsil Chall. districtAllahabad, have filed the present writpetition challenging the landacquisition proceedings initiated bythe Allahabad Development Authority,Allahabad, as a consequence of whichthe State of U. P. and the Collector.Allahabad, and the Special LandAcquisition Officer (NagarMahapalika), Allahabad, arranged toissue notifications under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 for acquisitionof the petitioners' land. Thepelitioner's land is only part of theland which had been acquired for aproject described as in thenotification for a park and a road.The petitioners have arrayed, thefollowing as party respondents : (1)State of U. P.. (2) Collector.Allahabad, (3) Special LandAcquisition Officer (NagarMahapalika). Allahabad. (4)Allahabad Deve...
Tag this Judgment!Renaissance Forum, Allahabad Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2103
Binod Kumar Roy and R. K. Singh, JJ. 1. On going through this writ petition and the supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the real prayer of the petitioner is to quash the National Commission for Minorities Act. 1992 (Parliament Act No. !9 of 1992) on the ground that it is violative of the Preamble and Articles 14, 16(1), 51A(E and F) of the Constitution of India, its object being vague and not specific.2. Following facts have been staled in the writ petition and its supplementary affidavit. The petitioner is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. It is a forum of intellectuals, whose main objective is to work for the unity and integrity of the nation and develop high values of life of all citizens in accordance with our rich cultural heritage and socio-economic development irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc. It is a historical fact that in 1947, partition of India took place on the basis of Hindu and Muslim majority areas. Pakistan was carve...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Pilibhit and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2385
A.K. Yog, J.1. Punjab National Bank (for short the Bank), a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its banking branch at Puranpur district Pilibhit filedOriginal Suit No. 66 of 1982, Punjab National Bank v. Anwar Ahmad Khan and four others, for claiming a money decree on the ground that defendant No. 1, Anwar Ahmad Khan (respondent No. 2) borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff bank on the basis of a pronote, which contemplated payment of interest under the agreement, executed by the parties. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Akil Khan and others (respondent Nos. 3 to 6) stood surety for defendant No. 1 Anwar Ahmad Khan and deed of surety/guarantee executed by them providing that liability of Anwar Ahmad Khan (respondent No. 2) was co-extensive with that of other defendants (respondent Nos. 3 to 6) for repayment of the loan as mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. On the failure of the defendants to pay loan, plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Unitech Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2896; (2000)ILLJ620All
P.K. Jain, J. 1. Following prayershave been made in this writ petition :(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records from respondent No. 1 and quashing its order and demand dated 11.10.88 (Annexure-1) ; (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature ofmandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the order dated 11.10.88 against the petitioner or to recover the amount of Rs. 73.890.65 P. from the petitioner under the impugned notice of demand ; and, (iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner, M/s. Unitech Engineers Private Limited is company registered under the Companies Act. In the year 1976, it came under the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and liability to pay employers and employees contributions under the Act started from September, 1976 as per o...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ram Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4103
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-11-1979 passed by Sri D.S. Ram, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1978 whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Shiv Ram Singh and Sugriv Singh of the offences under Sections 399/402, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and further convicted Shiv Ram Singh accused-appellant of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act also and sentenced him to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment for this offence and directed that in the case of each accused both all the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Out of the accused-appellants, Shiv Ram Singh accused-appellant has died during the pendency of the appeal and so to his extent this appeal is to abate. So now we have to dispose of this appeal to the extent of Sugriv Singh accused appellant.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant Sugriv S...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3080
ORDERB.K. Sharma J.1. The two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4-8-1981 passed by Sri D.C. Srivastava, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in S.T. No. 94 of 1977, State v. Vijay Narain whereby he convicted all the five accused-appellants of the Offence under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. One Ram Lal co-accused was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the State has not challenged his acquittal by way of filing an appeal.2. Out of the above five accused appellants, Mohan accused-appellant (Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 1981) was in custody at the time of his trial and after conviction he had already served out his sentence and the statement of his counsel Sri D.S. Tewari is that after being released from jail, he met his natural death. So now we have to deal with the cases as against Tulsi and Shitla Prasad accused appellant of Criminal Appeal No...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC146
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner through the present writ petition, challenges the orders dated 31.3.1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer (Maths).2. The petitioner was appointed in year 1980 as a Class IV employee in Inter College, Chandawall, Moradabad. The petitioner claims that he obtained Master of Science (Maths) and B.Ed. Degree. During the session 1983-84 for the first time, Science was made compulsory subject for High School classes. No teacher was available in the institution for teaching Science to High School classes and since the petitioner possessed the qualification of M.Sc. (Maths), the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 21.8.1983 to the effect that the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade be got created and teaching work of Science subject to High School classes be taken from the petitioner. Since then the petitioner is continuously teaching Science subject to Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Hazi Raunak Ali Khan Vs. Uco Bank, Bulandshahr and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas683(All)
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This is an application to recall the order dated 13.1.1997 whereby this Court allowed the application filed by UCO Bank under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act (in short the Act) against M/s Aurangabad Engineering Company Limited (in liquidation) granting permission to the applicant Bank to proceed with Suit No. 272 of 1987, UCO Bank v. Aurangabad Engineering Company Limited and others, pending in the Court of Vlth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr.2. The facts in brief are that UCO Bank had filed suit No. 272 of 1987 in the court of District Judge, Bulandshahr for recovery of Rs. 25,62,509.01 together with pendente lite and future interest against M/s. Aurangabad Engineering Co. Ltd. and against guarantors of the debt of the company, namely, (1) Raunak Ali. (2) Mohammad Waris (now represented by his heirs), (3) Asghar Ali and (4) Abdul Hasib. The suit was transferred to the Court of VIth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. While the suit was pending, Mah...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2093; (1999)2UPLBEC1397
M. Katju, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a reference made by one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju. J.) by order dated 20.7.1998 in Writ Petition No. 23076 of 1998 and upon the reference made in Writ Petition No. 24009 of 1998 by order dated 27.7.1998.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question referred to us relates to the interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others. AIR 1995 SC 1115.3. A perusal of the reference order indicates that the questions which fall for consideration are as follows :(1) to examine and decide whether the directives of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, should be confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone or they are applicable to all departments or all corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Mitter and Others Vs. District Judge, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2127
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This was a simple case. Difficulties have arisen due to the passage of time. It was more than thirty years ago that Dr. Kalindi Mittal, (the landlady for short) filed an application. It was to obtain permission under Section 3 of U. P. Temporary (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947 (the old Act for short) to file a suit to evict the tenant on the ground of her personal need. With the passage of time, new equity, new laws have come up, complicating the case. These are the vagaries of 'time consuming litigation' ; leaving one in doubt, which side Themis' is. But then I have to do my bit, take a decision and side with one on whose side Themis is. In short, it is a landlords' writ petition against the orders dated 21.5.1981 and 6.5.1980 rejecting their application under Section 21 (1) read with Section 43 (rr) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short).FACTS 2. Dr. Kalindi Mitter (the landlady) was the owner of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »