Allahabad Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ved Prakash Agrawal Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN577(All)
ORDERI have heard the learned counsels for both sides.An amount of Rs. 16,32,500 has been seized and is lying in the custody of police. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the money has not been seized from the applicants but from a third person.According to the applicants that third person was their driver. The applicants have claimed refund of that money from the police.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. It is not the case of the respondents that apart from the applicants there is any rival claimant to that money.The money is alleged to be lying seized for the past one and half years. Thus much time has elapsed since the seizure of the money, the amount is substantial. Yet there is no rival money claim till now.3. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the money be released in favour of the petitioners subject to their furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Jaunpur and also furnishi...
Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Dehat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC761
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The aforesaid two writ petitions are interlinked, therefore, I propose to decide both of them by a composite order making Writ Petition No. 34859 of 2001 as a leading case.2. The aforesaid two writ petitions are posted today for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties I propose to decide these two petitions on merits at admission stage.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the aforesaid two writ petitions are that the petitioner in the leading case Smt. Maya Devi contested election for the office of Pradhan of Village Panchayat Arshadpur Block Maitha district Kanpur Dehat along with other six candidates. The election was held on 14.6.2000, in which respondent No. 3 Kusuma Devi was declared elected Pradhan of the aforesaid village panchayat by margin of 14 votes. Smt. Kusuma Devi obtained 305 votes whereas her nearest rival candidate Smt. Maya Devi obtained 291 votes.4. Feeling aggrieved against declaration of result, the petitioner...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Iv, Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1141; [2002(92)FLR1223]; (2002)2UPLBEC1039
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Labour Court IV, U.P., Kanpur dated 2.7.1996, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 11.2.1992 has referred the following dispute before the labour court, the respondent No. 1.^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh jktsUnz dqekj iq= Jh HknbZ yky lhapiky dks fnukad 1-2-1990 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fdl frfFk ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr **3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties have exchanged their pleadings, adduced their evidence and the matter was argued before the labour court. Learned standing counsel has raised first ground that the labour court has not dealt with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the employer that workm...
Kundan Cold Storage Vs. Licensing Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1030
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and U.S. Tripathi, JJ. 1. The petitioners have come up with prayers to quash the order dated 9.8.1989 and 30th August, 1994 as contained in Annexures-3 and 4 passed by the Licensing Officer, Regulation of Cold Storages Act/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad. In Claim Case No. 40 filed by respondent No. 3. herein, by grant of a writ of certiorari.2. It appears that for setting aside the order dated 9.8.1989. the petitioners had moved respondent No. 1, but their prayer was rejected vide order dated 30th August, 1994.3. The petitioners assert inter alia, that they also filed an appeal along with stay application under Section 36 of the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before respondent No. 2 U. P. Cold Storage Tribunal, but since the Tribunal is not sitting for the last six months and as such, there is no alternative efficacious remedy available to them : that in the year 1985 an application was filed by res...
Rajit Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Mahadev Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1059
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 30.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition as stated in the writ petition, in brief, are that the land in dispute was originally owned by one Sri Ram Singh, who died on 28.8.1990 leaving behind his three sons, namely. Surya Bux Singh, Basdeo Singh and Mahadeo Singh. It was on 17.9.1990 Mahadeo Singh, Basdeo Singh and Surya Bux Singh, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 applied for mutation of their names in place of Ram Singh as his heirs and legal representatives before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On 16.10.1990, Sant Ram Das, father of respondent No. 6 also applied for mutation of his name in place of Ram Singh on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by him in his favour. Th...
Nand Lal Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1101
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. After restoring the petition to its original number, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard under the Rules of the Court for final disposal, 2. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 28.7.1997, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, passed by the appellate authority against the order of cancellation of the licence of the contesting respondent No. 2, who was existing licencee of a fair price shop of the area concerned. The first ground that has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of the licence of dealership, it has been allotted in hisfavour but he has not been impleaded as party in the plaint filed by the erstwhile licencee. This argument is fallacious. The petitioner has no right because he has been allotted the shop as a consequence of the cancellation of licence of the then existing licencee. The above...
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (1), Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1138; [2002(93)FLR414]; (2002)2UPLBEC1108
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award dated 29.10.1996 and the orders dated 24.6.1996 and 9.9.1996, which have become part of the award, passed by respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 50 of 1994, Annexures-1, 2 and 3, respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are as under. The State Government referred the following dispute to be answered by the Industrial Tribunal, which has been registered as Adjudication Case No. 50 of 1994, which runs as under :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh lUr yky iq= Jh caxkyh dh lsok,a fnukad 30-3-1991 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok cS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oe~ vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr **3. By the order dated 24.6.1996, a preliminary issued was framed, which runs as under :'Whether the domestic enquiry held is fair, proper and valid? ...
In Re: J.D. Polymers Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: [2002]38SCL79(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Tarun Agarwala, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant-company. List has been revised but no one appears for the J.D. Polymers Ltd. 2. This winding up petition was presented on 3-2-1999 under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 to wind up J.D. Polymers Ltd., having its registered office at Flat No. 1, Priya Apartment, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur. It is stated in the petition that the company has authorised share capital of the respondent-company to the tune of Rs. 350 lakhs divided into 35,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and the issued and subscribed equity share is Rs. 50,00,000 divided into 5,00 000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company is engaged in to design, manufacture, develop, improve, etc., leather, rubber, plytyeruathine, eva, polypropelin, HDP & LDP sheets, boot and shoe or other footwear products. The respondent-company approached the petitioner-company for Inter Corporate Deposit for their business pu...
Moh. Kallu Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Moradabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC753
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondent No. 2 filed objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming allotment of original holding plot No. 56. The objection was rejected against which an appeal was filed. The appeal was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer ofConsolidation by order dated 29.7.2000. An application to recall the order dated 29.7,2000 was filed on which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation again passed an order dated 7.4.2001. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.1.2001 against which order the petitioner has come up to this Court in this writ petition.2. Sri M. D...
Sayed Hamudul Hasan Jafri Vs. District Magistrate, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC764
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Considering the facts of the case which have already been recorded by this Court by passing judgment and order dated 10.12.2001 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) in W.P. No. 41349 of 2001, Maqsood Akhtar Badshah v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and Ors., between the same parties, same accommodation and arising from the same bundle of facts. 2. Xth-Additional District Judge. Allahabad, respondent No. 2 initially granted Interim order on the basis of undertaking given on 11.1.2002 by the opposite parties and subsequently extended by the Court vide order dated 17.1.2002 as per order sheet filed as Annexure-VI to the writ petition. 3. Memo of Revision No. 1766 of 2001, S. M. Jaffar Hussain through its attorney Masood Akhtar v. Homudul Hasan Jafri, has been filed as Annexure-IV to the writ petition. Memo of revision itself shows that S. M. Jaffar Hussain has now appeared through its alleged attorney Maqsood Akhtar who had already lost from this Court as afor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »