Allahabad Court May 2000 Judgments

V.S. Krishnan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4498

R.K. Dash, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the first information report in case Crime No. 839 of 1999 under Sections 420/467/468/471/504, I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. A further prayer has been made directing the police not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.2. The factual aspect of the case emerging from the averments made in the writ petition as also the copy of the first information report annexed therewith is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, related as husband and wife are the Directors of Maha Vishnu Financial Services Limited, Chennai (for short the 'Company'). Dr. Purshottam Lal, respondent No. 4, while working in Apollo Hospital, Chennai had advanced loan of rupees fifty lacs to the financial company and subsequently a further sum of fifty lacs from his deposits in the Canara Bank. Villivakkam Branch, Chennai...

Priyanka (Km.) Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC2283

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. In view of the order dated 29.2.2000 of this Court the respondents produced the answer books of the petitioner as also the answer books of the other student from which the matter was alleged to be copied by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also admits that the two answer books produced do not tally with each other. In the answers 1 also do not find that there is anything from which copying is presumed as in no way petitioner's answers are tallying with the answer from which the petitioner is said to have copied.3. No counter-affidavit has been filed although time was granted. As the records have already been produced, the learned Standing Counsel agrees to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage.4. As it appears that there is no basis for holding the petitioner responsible for copying as appears from the records produced before the Court, the cancellation of result of ...

Committee of Management, Ashok Inter College and Another Vs. District ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1930; (2000)2UPLBEC1782

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was heard along with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49016 of 1099. Committee of Management and another v. District Inspector of Schools.2. The contesting parties advanced argument at length. But, the facts are not in dispute. The relevant facts, as available from the materials on record, are that an election was held on 24.1.1996 which was not recognised and, therefore, a civil suit was filed wherein an injunction order was passed ex parte, A Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 1996 filed against the said injunction order was allowed and the injunction was vacated. A review application was filed against the same. Also a revision being No. 3821 of 1996 was filed challenging the order dated 14,10.1996. The writ petition was disposed of on 9.9.1997 directing early disposal of the review application and also directing maintaining status quo till then. Ultimately, the review application was allowed on 22.12.1997 and appeal was restored. Contesting respondent was...

Allahabad Patrika (P.) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1926; [2000(86)FLR159]; (2000)IILLJ1147All; (2000)2UPLBEC1786

Aloke Chakrabarti. J. 1. This writ petition was filed by the employer challenging the order dated 29,5.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer under the Working Journalists and other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1955 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition as also the citation for recovery following the same dated 27.7.1999 at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The respondents working Journalist contested the proceeding and filed counter-affidavit. Petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit.2. Heard Mr. V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application which has been allowed by the impugned order was under sub-sectton (1) of Section 17 of the said Act of 1955 which is in the nature of execution proceeding on the basis of some adjudication as regards the claim and it is an additional mode of recovery only ...

Smt. Vimala Alias Urmila Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Jhansi and Oth ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2223

A. K. Yog, J.1. This is defendant's petition, who was tenant of a certain accommodation.2. Plaintiffs--Arun Kumar Khare and Anand Kumar Khare/Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, filed Suit No. 126 of 1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Defendant filed written statement.3. Parties led evidence.4. Defendant (present petitioner), however, filed an application dated 4th February, 1999, for issuing commission to inspect the accommodation in question so as to submit his report regarding the age of the construction in question (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Plaintiff filed objections (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).5. Judge Small Causes Court considered the application for issuing commission (Paper No. 45C), and considering the relevant circumstances and the objections raised by the other side rejected the said application vide judgment and order dated 13th May. 1999. (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).6. Defendant, not being satisfied, filed J.S.C. Revision No. 3 of 2000, purported to be under...

Gur Sharan Singh Bhalla Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Kanpur Na ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2248

A. K. Yog, J.1. Gur Sharan Singh Shall a (petitioner) is the tenant of a shop on the ground floor of premisesNo. 126/13/151, Chandra Market. Govind Nagar, Kanpur, on a rent of Rs. 400 per month on the basis of a 'memorandum of agreement' dated 11.10.1987, executed by the tenant and Pherumal (the landlord). Under 'memorandum of agreement', tenant was required to deposit Rs. 20.000 (Copy of 'memorandum' has been filed as Annexure-lA to the writ petition). 2. After serving notice, landlord filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 25 of 1995. Parties had opportunity to contest. The suit was decreed. S.C.C. Revision No. 26 of 1999, under Section 25. Provincial Small Cause Court Act was filed which is pending. 3. During pendency of the revision, tenant /petitioner filed an application dated 23.10.1999. raising objection on the ground that the agreement (said to be memorandum of agreement) was not registered, hence it was not admissible in evidence and it could not be taken into account by the Court below in ...

Kailash Nath Goel Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3001; 2001CriLJ333

J.C. Gupta and S.K. Agarwal, JJ. 1. This is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner, Kailash Nath God. His earlier writ petition, bearing No. 39460 of 1999, was dismissed by us on 24.4.2000 on the ground that the order of detention does not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as the acts of the petitioner were not only prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but also to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. However, the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 39460 of 1999 were given by us later on. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that in similar set of circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court has subsequently held the application of provisions of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter called as 'NSA') inapplicable. The finding by the other Division Bench returned in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 42309 of 1999. Dilip Kumar v. Union of India and others, is as under :'It is not disputed th...

Daurala Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR637]; (2002)IVLLJ752All

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was heard alongwith Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27178 of 1996 Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited v. The Appellate Authority Evam Addl. Labour Commissioner, U.P. and others.2. This writ petition was filed by the employer challenging the order passed by the Labour Court with regard to a dispute relating to entitlement of the workmen concerned to the rate of pay for a particular period.3. Heard Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner employer and Mr. Shyam Narain learned counsel for the respondent workmen.4. Upon consideration of the contentions of the respective parties, I find that the point required to be considered here is as to whether the relevant Government policy as quoted in the impugned order entitled the workmen to the wage revision as claimed by them. The workmen contended that the date of revision of wage in respect of them was January 1, 1986 and according to the employer such date was January 1, 1988. Both ...

Jittan S/O Sarjoo and ors. Vs. State

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4944

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The present appeal was preferred by the appellants Jittan s/o Sarjoo, Rekha s/o Sarjoo, Chittoo s/o Sarjoo and Lal Chand s/o Shiv Dhar against their conviction under Section 148, 302/149 and 201, IPC (passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh) and sentences of two years' R. 1, life imprisonment and for 4 years rigorous imprisonment respectively under the above-said sections. These sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. One of the appellant Ashok Kumar alias Bijli was murdered before the case was committed to the Court of Session. His trial, therefore, was abated. During pendency of the appeal three appellants jittan, Rekha and Chittu all sons of Sarjoo have also died. Appeal of Jittan dismissed as abated vide the Court's order dated 17-9-1998. The appeal of Rekha and Chittu had already been dismissed by this Court as abated by its order dated 19-9-1998. Thus in the present appeal we are concerned only with appellant Lal Chand.3. In the present case t...

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In this appeal by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the IT Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), passed by the CIT, Central Circle, Kanpur on 22nd March, 1999, the assessee has assailed the CIT's order by way of as much as 13 grounds extracted as under: "1. The CIT (Central), Kanpur, has erred against law and facts on record in framing the order dt. 22nd March, 1999, under Section 263 of the IT Act contrary of law and facts on record. 2. The CIT (Central) is in error in passing an order under Section 263 with respect to order of assessment dt. 27th March, 1997, despite the facts that the order of assessment dt. 27th March, 1997, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT while framing the order under Section 263 had failed to take cognizance of the record available at the time of its examination by the learned CIT in accordance with the Section 263, Explanation Clause (b), of the IT Ac...