Allahabad Court July 2001 Judgments
Riaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2002LabIC166; (2001)3UPLBEC2425
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sayed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. Neither the pleadings contained in his writ petition, nor the arguments of his learned counsel disclose any legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right of the petitioner entitling him to assail the order dated January 28, 1995, a copy whereof is Annexure-16 to the petition.3. The petitioner, as described by him, is an officiating Executing Engineer, and was posted at Etah when he approached this Court by means of instant writ petition.4. By the impugned order dated January 28, 1995, among others. Shri Ashok Kumar, the respondent No. 3, belonging to scheduled caste, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, and posted at Etah, where the petitioner, as noted earlier, was functioning as officiating Executive Engineer. Apprehending that, as aconsequence of the regular selection, and promotion of the respondent No. 3 and his po...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Prescribed Authority (Munsif City), ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2302
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Both the above mentioned writ petitions are by tenant. Writ Petition No. 11676 of 1981 is directed against the order dated 24.9.1981 passed by the prescribed authority, Meerut respondent No. 1 while by means of other Writ Petition No. 27484 of 1995 the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 15.9.1995 passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Meerut passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 345 of 1982 and the order dated 21.8.1982 passed by small cause court. Meerut, respondent No. 6 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1524 of 1973.2. The dispute relates to shop No. 437, Bazar Bajaja. Meerut city whose original tenant was Parmanand, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 27484 of 1995.3. An application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) was moved by the landlords on 9.4.1969 seeking permission for the eviction of the tenant. Parmanand, from the shop in dispute. Eight other applic...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2557
Sudhir Narain and V. M. Sahai, JJ. 1. The petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 20.6.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) cancelling his licence for fertilizers. 2. The petitioner is a retail dealer of fertilizers. He obtained a licence for selling fertilizers under the provisions of Fertiliser (Control) Order. 1985 (in short the 'Order'). On 9.1.2001, the Fertilizer Inspector, Kerakat, district Jaunpur took a sample of D.A.P. fertilizer from the shop of the petitioner. On 24.3.2001 the District Agriculture Officer, respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that report of the analyst indicates that the fertilizer, which was being sold by the petitioner from his shop, is deficient in certain ingredients and is not up to the mark. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice. In his reply, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it was stated that the quantity of phosphorus and other ingredients was less hardly by 1-2...
Tag this Judgment!Kshitij Singh Vs. Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Educatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All348; (2001)3UPLBEC2434
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. The petitioner who appeared in Senior School Certificate Examination, 2001, filed the present writ petition praying for issues of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of four subjects (Physics, Mathematics. English and Computer). Counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed by the respondents.2. I have heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. N. Pandey appearing for the respondents.3. Petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition, is that the petitioner has been a very brilliant student throughout his career. Petitioner in the writ petition has given the marks achieved by him from Class I to Class X. Annexure-18 to the writ petition is detailed chart showing the name of the institution and the percentage of marks received by the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that in Secondary Education Examination. 1998, the petitioner was awarded 95% marks. Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Miyan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2359
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Mr. A. I. Naqvi, who appeared for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and also perused the record. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.11.1974 passed by the prescribed authority and order dated 30.7.1980 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, acting as appellate authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act' and for an order in the nature of mandamus declaring the whole proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of prescribed authority as illegal. 3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 14.3.1974. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed an objection claiming tha...
Tag this Judgment!Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR849]; (2002)ILLJ413All
S. Rafat Alam, J. 1. In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., has prayed for quashing of the order of the Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P., Kanpur, dated July 4, 2001 rejecting its application to recall the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000 and also for quashing of the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitionerand also the learned counsel appearing for theworkman respondent No. 2 who has also filedcaveat. 3. It appears that an industrial dispute in respect of termination of service of respondent No. 2 was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 4 (k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 177 of 1999. The learned Tribunal accordingly issued summons to the parties calling upon them to file their statement and October 15, 1999 was fixed for their appearance. The respondent workman appeared on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Mohan (Dr.) Vs. Banaras Hindu University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2125
O.P. Garg and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of mandamus to restrain the University from holding any selection for the post of Professor in the Department of Electronics Engineering pursuant to Advertisement No. 5/89-90 scheduled to be held on 8.5.1993. Further prayer has also been made to quash the recommendations made by the Selection Committee on 8.5.1993.2. We have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.P. Sahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.B. Upadhaya, Senior Advocate, for the respondents.3. The parties have exchanged their affidavits.4. Banaras Hindu University made advertisement for the post of Professor of Electronics Engineering vide Advertisement No. 5/89-90. The applications were invited latest by 12.1.1990 for the said post. A copy of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is pleaded that ordinances framed by the Univ...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4424
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri D.K. Dewan, learned Counsel for the applicant in revision and the learned A.G.A.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision is disposed of finally.3. The revision is directed against the order dated 6-7-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Mathura in S.T. No. 437/1987, State v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. under Section 302, IPC, P.S. Baldeo allowing permission to the prosecution to bring on record certain papers for showing that the accused revisionists were having bad and shady character, at the stage when prosecution had already closed its evidence.4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that on behalf of prosecution an application was moved stating that accused Prithvi Singh, Fateh Singh and Shree Chand have long criminal history and, therefore, the prosecution may be allowed to file papers showing that accused persons were of bad character. This application was opposed on behalf of the accused applicants on the...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.M. Basheer Mohammad and Sons Vs. Ram Bali Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2429
I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist SrJ N. K. Seth and Sri R. K. Agarwal learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, i.e., Masonic Temple Lodge Independence, Lucknow. 2. On 7.9.2000 while admitting this revision, this Court directed to issue notice to respondent No. 1. According to stamp reporter, the notice has been served on Ram Bali Singh opposite party No. 1 personally on 30.9.2000 as per report of Process Server. Today, this case has been listed at Sl. No. 6 of the cause list, Case called out. No one responded for respondent No. 1. Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed further even in the absence of opposite party No. 1. 3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.8.2000 passed in Regular Suit No. 593 of 1999, Masonic Temple Lodge v. Lucknow Development Authority and others, by which application of opposite party No. 1 for his impleadment as party has been allowed, inter alia, on the ground that opposite party No. 1 had f...
Tag this Judgment!Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR443(All); [2002]121TAXMAN268(All)
1. We have heard Sri S. N. Morarka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Sri Prakash Krishna assisted by Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party.2. We are of the view that a question of law arises in the facts of the case in view of difference of opinion in judicial pronouncements.3. We, however, reframe the question as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disallowance of the interest paid by the assessee on its borrowed funds in excess of 12 per cent. was justified under Section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only because the assessee-company had utilised its own fund to advance loans at a lower rate of interest to sister concern ?'4. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion, as early as possible.5. The application stands allowed to the extent indicated above....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »