Allahabad Court December 2001 Judgments
In Re: Bukeys Batteries (P.) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC884
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This is an application under Section 457 of the Companies Act. 1956 by Shri Khalid Mukhtar, who is also the ex-director of the Company in Liquidation. He was also the guarantor of the loan given by the Bank to the Company in Liquidation. The applicant has prayed for a direction to the Official Liquidator, U. P. Allahabad for defending T.A. No. 976 of 2000, Canara Bank v. Bukeys Batteries Pvt. Ltd. pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Allahabad as well as to take appropriate steps for recalling the order for proceeding ex parte against the company. The Official Liquidator has in compliance to the order dated 21.11.2001 filed a counter-affidavit, in which he has stated that the entire assets of the Company in Liquidation have been sold with the approval of the Court for a sum of Rs. 28.11 lacs in favour of M/s. Bawa Agro Products of Aligarh. He states that the claim of Canara Bank was of Rs. 78,02,943.48 filed by the Company whereas the amount available with th...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC498
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri P. K. Mishra counsel for the petitioner.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 28th August, 2001 and 19th December, 2000 respectively.3. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are ; it is stated that the writ petition arises of the mutation proceeding, Shiv Balak who was father of the petitioner died on 15th November. 1997. A report was made and the names of the petitioner and his brothers were mutated in the khatauni as sons of Shiv Balak, deceased and entry was made by revenue inspector, The proceedings for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by the respondents claiming that their names should be mutated in place of Shiv Balak, deceased, on the basis of a registered Will dated 22nd February, 1997, executed by Shiv Balak, the deceased. The mutation proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were al...
Tag this Judgment!Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC534
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. One of the question which has arisen in these writ petitions is as to whether the Additional Collector can exercise powers of Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In first two writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 40986 of 2001 and 40983 of 2001. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Collector can exercise the power of Collector under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and in fact, he is Collector for thepurposes of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In other writ petitions, it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner of all those cases that Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction of Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and orders passed by Additional Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Ref...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Singh and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC562
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. These six writ petitions have been filed challenging the same order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly Camp at Shahjahanpur under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 15.1.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 25.1.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer.2. The facts and dispute in these six writ petitions raise common questions hence they are being decided by this common judgment.3. Writ Petition No. 37860 of 2001 (which is being treated as leading case) gives the facts in detail. The facts as stated in the aforesaid writ petition are that the proceedings under provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred as '1953 Act') started in village Gahlulya, District Shahjahanpur. In basic year khatauni. Plot No. 2 was recorded as reserved forest in Khata No. 262. An objection was filed by the petitioner Harish Chand Slngh und...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Dixit Vs. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1051
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the order impugned dated 4.12.2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.3. During the course of argument, Sri S. C. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 brought to my notice the appointment letter of the petitioner appointing him on the post of Secretary from perusal of which it is evident that he was appointed as officiating Secretary due to sudden demise of Sobran Lal Chaturvedi in a stop gap arrangement till further order of the appointing authority. The aforesaid officiating appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secretary has been approved by the Committee of Management vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition dated 5.6.2001. It is held that terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment letter of the petitioner are binding upon him. The petitioner cannot be allowed to claim benefits beyond the terms and conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Anurag Verma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC397; (2002)1UPLBEC720
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioners in this bunch of 14 writ petitions have,inter alia, prayed for issuance of writof certiorari quashing the U. P.Backward Classes WelfareDepartment (Gazetted Officers)Service Rules, 1998 (in short theRules) in so far as it excludes fromthe Rules the clause pertaining toabsorption/continuation of thoseofficers who have been working fromthe very inception of the Departmenton ad hoc basis ; a writ, order ordirection in the nature of certtorariquashing the order dated 31.8.1999whereby the petitioners'representation for absorption hasbeen rejected ; a writ, order ordirection in the nature of mandamuscommanding the respondents not tofill up the posts of Zila Pichhara VargKalyan Adhlkari on the basis ofrecommendation of the U, P. PublicService Commission ; a writ, order ordirection not to fill up the posts heldby the petitioners as 'Zila PichharaVarg Kalyan Adhlkari' and not to interfere, in any manner, with theirfunctioning as 'Zila Plchhara VargKalyan Adhikarl' in...
Tag this Judgment!D.S.M. Group of Industries and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC540(All)
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Since common question of law regarding taxability on molasses under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is involved in these revisions, they have been heard together and are being decided with one common judgment.2. All these revisions have been filed by D.S.M. Group of Industries and others under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter as 'the Act') against the order dated October 26, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, in Second Appeal Nos. 282 of 1999, 283 of 1999 and 284 of 1999 of the revisionists filed against the ex parte provisional assessment order for the months of December, 1998, January, 1999 and February, 1999.3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionists while submitting their return under Rule 41 had not shown the turnover of molasses as taxable under the Act but the Assessing Officer had passed ex parte provisional assessment orders dated February 26, 1999, March 10, 1999 and March 30, 1999 for the months of December,...
Tag this Judgment!Tarique Arafat and ors. Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC690
S. Rafat Alam, J. 1. In all these petitions the controversy involved is common and identical, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the they have not been permitted to appear in the University examination on the ground that their lectures fell short and thus in terms of the provisions of the Ordinance, they are not eligible to appear in the University examination.3. When this matter was earlier taken up as fresh before another Bench of this Court on 26-3-2001 the University was granted time to file counter affidavit and by an interim order petitioners were provisionally permitted to sit in the examination which was scheduled to commence from 28.3.2001. Pursuant to that order all the petitioners appeared in the examination but their results were not declared. However, when the matter was again taken up on 22-5-2001, it was ordered to be lis...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC461; (2002)1UPLBEC449
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the resolution dated December 7. 1999 of the Executive Council of Allahabad University, the order dated December 8, 1999 of the Registrar of the University and also the order dated January 28, 2000 of the Vice Chancellor. The parties have exchanged affidavits and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2, The ten petitioners are employees of institute of Correspondence and Continuing Education of University of Allahabad. According to the University, some employees of the institute entered the office of the Registrar of the University on December 3, 1999 and after abusing and threatening him, lifted a chair and threw the same on him and also physically assaulted him, They also broke the telephone, furniture and the glass top of the table. Some persons present in the vicinity intervened and saved the Registrar from being assaulted further. ...
Tag this Judgment!Likhi Ram Alias Moola and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC521
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents (1) to recall the Notification No. 4429/VII-101/84-86 dated 23.8.1986 and the letter No. 120/VII-DLRC/84-86 issued by the District Magistrate and (2) to cancel the notification Issued by the Commissioner vesting the land in Ghaziabad Development Authority and making amaldaramad (mutation) of the name of the Ghazlabad Development Authority in the revenue papers, and also (3) to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to show under what authority he has issued the aforesaid notification.2. The writ petition was nominated to another Bench on 8.11.2001, but as the said Bench declined to hear it, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed a fresh order nominating the present Bench. The case was thereafter heard on 12.12.2001.3. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 195...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »