Allahabad Court April 2000 Judgments

Rajendra Prakash Vs. Smt. Babita Gupta Alias Pratiba Gupta and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2253

D.K. Seth, J.1. By means of this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order dated 24th August, 1998, passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division. 2nd Court. Bareilly in O.S. No. 473 of 1994 has since been challenged.2. The brief facts leading to the present situation may be summarised as hereinafter.3. The plaintiff-opposite party had filed a suit praying for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property declaring that the impugned sale deed being without consideration conferred no title to the defendant since the same is void, illegal and in-operative and not binding. The pleading made out in the plaint is that a deed of sale was registered by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 paid by cheque without any payment by cash. The cheque was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficient fund. The plaintiff requested the defendant as well as by notice...

Dr. K.M. Srivastava Vs. Amal Kumar Verma and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1715; 2000CriLJ3801

B. K. Rathi, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the opposite parties for violating the order dated 11.10.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43646 of 1999.Dr. K. M. Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others.2. I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned standing counsel and have gone through the affidavits.3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :The petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Inspector Group-I on 24.9.1980. He cleared the departmental examination within one year and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative. That an ad-hoc selection was organised on 15.10.1988 and certain persons were selected. The petitioner was not promoted. The petitioner, therefore. challenged the ad-hoc promotion in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31874 of 1990. In that writ petition on 16.7.1...

Satya Prakash Srivastava Vs. Yogendra Narain, Chief Secretary, U.P., L ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1719; (2000)2UPLBEC1259

B. K. Rathi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the opposite party for disobeying the order of this Court, dated 21.2.1998. passed in Writ Petition No. 6831 of 1998.2. I have heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Facts of the case are asfollows :3. The applicant is a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited, Pratapgarh. He was not absorbed on any post of the State Government and therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 6831 of 1998. which was allowed by the Division Bench on 21.2.1998 In terms of the decision of the Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 502 (SB) of 1995. Anukool Prakash and another v. State of U. P. and another, decided on 22.2.1996 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was ordered that the petition of the petitioner is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in that writ petition. It was further ordered that the Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. ...

Smt. Nirupa Rana and Others Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradu ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1807

ORDERSudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23.5.1997 allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 and the order of the appellate authority dated 1.3.2000 dismissing the appeal against the said order. 2. Respondent No. 2 is thelandlord of the disputed premises. Hefiled an application for release of thedisputed accommodation againstthree tenants, namely, S. S. Thapa,B. S. Ran a and Sri H. Ahmad underSection21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the Act). Sri S. S.Thapa is a tenant of one room,kitchen and half verandah. B. S. Ranawas also a tenant of similaraccommodation while Shri H. Ahmadis tenant of the premises comprisingof two rooms, half verandah and akitchen. In the application, it wasstated that the accommodation inoccupation of the aforesaid tenantswas in a dilapidated condition andrequired demolition andreconstruction. The landlord is anEngineer in Indian Airlines and isgoing ...

Dr. Jagdamba Singh and Others Vs. Vice-chancellor, University of Allah ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1696; (2000)2UPLBEC1822

D.R. Chaudhary, J.1. These two writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and can be decided by a common judgment and as such the same are being taken up together.2. By means of advertisement Nos. 3. 4 and 5 of 1999 (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition), the University of Allahabad has advertised 188 posts (38 posts for Professors, 65 posts of Readers and 85 posts of Lecturers) which are tying vacant in different departments of the University. The petitioners of writ petition No. 31116 of 1999 have prayed for a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement Nos. 3. 4 and 5 of 1999 and for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the University to incorporate the qualifications as provided in the notification issued by the University Grants Commission, in Short (U.G.C.). The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the University to re-advertise the posts mentioning in the advertisement itself the minimum qualificati...

Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1867

M.C. Jain, J.1. There is a spate of writ petitions every year involving and concerning the provisions of U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1954 (for short 'the Rules') framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 28 of the Act, in one form of the other. The present two writ petitions belong to the same category. 2. Writ Petition No. 53640 of 1999 has been filed by Simbhaoli Sugar Mills against six respondents, but the main contest is between the petitioner and respondent No. 3--Agauta Sugar and Chemicals. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 10.12.1999 passed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) under Section 15 (4) of the Act (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) read with Rule 23 of the Rules, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the reservation order dated 25.10.1999 passed by...

Dr. Angshula Sarkar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1907; (2000)2UPLBEC1605

M. Katju, J. 1. This case illustrates the quandary Into which this Court is sometimes thrown in this age of scientific specialization and super-specialization.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned advertisement dated 17.9.1999 issued by the Principal of S. N. Medical College, Agra Annexure-12 to the writ petition and to quash the appointment order dated 30.10.1999 in favour of respondent No. 5 on the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Biochemistry in the Medical College.3. We have heard the learnedcounsel for the parties. The short point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Is that the respondent No. 5 Is not qualified for the post to which she has been appointed.4. According to the advertisement, copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition, the minimum qualification for the post ofDemonstrator in BiochemistryDepartment is M.Sc. in MedicalBiochemistry or M.B.B.S. It is urgedthat the respondent No. 5 does notpossess any of these qualifications...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2000(85)FLR926]; (2000)IIILLJ722All

I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. The petitioner-company, in the present Writ Petition has called in question the impugned award dated October 30, 1998 published on March 6, 1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Cases No. 36/93 to 50 of 1993 and 5 of 1994.2. I have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K.P. Agarwal assisted by Km. Suman Sirohi for the workmen and learned Standing Counsel.3. The relevant facts that lie within a narrow compass are that in the year 1974, the petitioner-company after discussions with the workmen/trade unions offered a scheme of voluntary separation known as 'voluntary separation scheme' (in short VSS). Notice of the said scheme was notified on October 10, 1974. The scheme offered substantial benefits in excess of those provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 to the workmen. In response, about 80 workmen resigned during the period October 1974 to February, 1975 under the sa...

Rama Shanker and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000CriLJ3830

M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed by five appellants 1. Rama Shankar, 2. Doodh Nath, 3. Ram Jeet, 4. Ram Janam and 5. Baijnath against the judgment and order dated 29th May, 1993 passed by Sri S. M. Pandey, the then Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1985. Rama Shanker and Ram Jeet have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and the remaining three have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. The accused-appellants-Rama Shankar, Ram Jeet and Ram Janam have further been convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The remaining accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellant-Doodh Nath has been convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to nine months' ...

C.D. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In these four appeals the assessee has, in addition to challenging the consolidated order of the CIT(A) with respect to various additions and findings on merits including as to whether income included in assessee's assessments did belong to assessee or the HUF styled as M/s Ram Dihal & Sons (HUF), Jaunpur, has challenged the very validity of initiation of the proceeding under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by way of following grounds.Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of action under Section 147 and the assessment made thereunder.Because there existed no material which could lead to the 'formation of belief that as far as the appellant was concerned, his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and consequently the initiation of proceedings thereunder as also the assessment made in pursuance thereof are void ab initio.2. The grounds on merits, except nature and ...