Allahabad Court July 2001 Judgments
Akhilesh Vs. District Magistrate/Collector, Shahjahanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2556A
M. Katju and R. B. Misra, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Petitioner operated the theka but he has not paid the theka dues. He has filed this writ petition alleging that theka dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Even assuming that the said dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the petitioner has operated the theka but he has now raised a technical ground to obtain a stay order by filing this writ petition.3. Writ jurisdiction is adiscretionary remedy. Since the petitioner has operated the theka and collected the money, there is no equity in his favour.4. Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Bisheshwar Singh Alias Kalloo Vs. District Magistrate/Collector, Shahj ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2556
M. Katju and R. B. Misra, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Petitioner operated the theka but he has not paid the theka dues. He has filed this writ petition alleging that theka dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Even assuming that the said dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the petitioner has operated the theka but he has now raised a technical ground to obtain stay order by filing this writ petition.3. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary. Since the petitioner has operated the theka and collected the money, there is no equity in his favour.4. Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2496
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged Clauses 7 and 8 of the Government order dated 12.6.2001, whereby certain relaxation in regard to the constructions of cinema halls has been given to the persons raisingconstructions on complying with certain conditions.2. The petitioner is running the business of Basant cinema since 1969 and is also running Ganga cinema since the year 1987. Both the aforesaid cinema halls are situated at Thana Bhawan, district Muzaffarnagar.3. Respondent No. 3 applied to the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority for construction of cinema halls. He has granted permission to him to construct cinema halls. The grievance of the petitioner is that the site of the cinema hall which is to be constructed by respondent No. 3 is hardly at a distance of 3 kms. from Basant Cinema and 3.5 kms. from Ganga Cinema and it will affect the business of the petitioner for two reasons, firstly it is near to the cinema hall of the petitioner and secondly the cinema halls, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khaitan Overseas and Finance Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CompLJ423(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This amendment application has been filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code') read with Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for amending paragraphs 2(1) to 2(5) and sub-paras 11-A, 11-B, 11-C and 11-D along with supplementary affidavit annexing documents which include, confirmation of loan, letters issued by the applicant-company, photostat copies of the cheques issued by the respondent-company which were dishonoured, and a Form No. 16A in respect of certificate of deduction of tax at source. The counsel for the respondent-company has objected to the amendment application. According to him, such an amendment application cannot be allowed inasmuch as the preliminary hearing of the winding up application had been concluded by the then Hon'ble Company Judge, and that no reason has been given for filing the amendment application after such a long time. He has further submitted that the documents enclosed with the supplementary aff...
Tag this Judgment!Singh Raj Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4788
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. This revision is directed against,the order dated 24-4-2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has summoned three wit nesses in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 311, Cr.P.C.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted before the court that after the parties had adduced evidence and the Court had heard arguments, the Court below has summoned the three witnesses who were cited in chargesheet whom the prosecution did not examine earlier and thus the trial Court is filling up lacuna left by the prpsecution.3. It is now well settled by catena of decisions of Apex Court that a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight commited by Public Prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant material or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses. Lacuna in the prosecution case must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedg...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2495
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of condition No. 4 in the Government order dated 2.8.2000 and condition No. 10 in the Government order dated 4.1.2001, whereby the petty diesel dealers are required to obtain supply of diesel oil in drum and conduct the sale also from drums only.2. The petitioner is owner of a tanker and transports high speed diesel oil through her tanker. Her grievance is that if the petty diesel dealers are required to obtain sell diesel in drums only, her business will be affected.3. The Parliament has enacted Essential Commodities Act. 1955, (in short the 'Act'). It provides for control of production, distribution and supply, etc. of certain commodities including the high speed diesel oil. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Control Orders while Section 5 of the Act provides for delegation of power to the State Government to make Control Orders. The State Government of U.P. under the delegated powers, has issued...
Tag this Judgment!Chakresh Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2676; (2001)3UPLBEC2483
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has sought to quash the bye-laws framed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Budaun whereby the owners of Nursing Homes, Clinics, etc- are required to obtain licence and pay fee for the same and the notices issued for realisation of fee.2. The State Government issued a general direction on 27th April1994 to the Nagar Palikas to frame bye-laws in respect of matters covered by Section 298 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Nagar Palika Parishad, respondent No. 2, passed resolution on 23rd March,1995, framing bye-laws. The resolution was affirmed in its meeting held on 11th November, 1995.3. The bye-laws were published in the official gazette on 14th November, 1995. The bye-laws, inter alia, provided for obtaining licenceand pay fee for the licence. The Nursing Homes, Private Clinics. Pathology Centres and Maternity Homes, etc. were required to pay licence fee as prescribed in the bye-laws. The validity of these bye-laws have been challenged in the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Niwas Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2874; [2001(91)FLR558]
P.K. Jain, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal, which was admitted on ground No. 2, which is said to be the substantial question of law. The said ground is formulated below :'Because the plaintiffs-respondents being governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, then remedy was to raise an Industrial Dispute and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents.'2. Thus, the dispute in this appeal is whether the suit is cognizable by the civil court or whether the Industrial Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed and employed by the defendant-appellant as class IV employees (the date of appointment is not disclosed). Their services were, however, terminated after expiry of 30 days' notice in the year 1967, although they had put in more than 6 months continuous service as casual ...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Shankar Trivedi Vs. Secretary, Lakhimpur Central Consumers' Co-op ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC342; [2001(91)FLR1057]; (2001)3UPLBEC2688
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termination dated 4.12.1985 contained in Annexure-1. Prayer for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the post of Branch Manager of respondent No. 1 has also been made.3. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Salesman on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated 5.6.1976. The order of appointment is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which provides that the services of the petitioner are purely temporary and were liable to be terminated at any time. After his appointment, the petitioner was permitted to continue for a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner and other candidates had to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC1958
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Yatindra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.2. Forty three vacancies for the posts of Village Development Officer were advertised vide advertisement dated 31.8.1998, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner participated in the selection as an 'Other Backward Class' candidate and secured 48.87% marks but was placed in the waiting list of O.B.C. candidates. It would appear that the petitioner preferred representation stating therein that two general category candidates selected did not join the since the petitioner had secured 48.87% marks, he may be appointed against one of the vacancies resulting due to non-joining of the selected candidates. Since the authorities did not take any decision on the representation, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »