Allahabad Court February 2002 Judgments
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2907
ORDERSushil Harakauli, J.1. The writ petitioner moved an application dated 23-8-2000 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the respondents 4 to 6 herein had threatened and assaulted him, his wife and his brother, and had also damaged his property. It was alleged that the police had refused to register the FIR. It was prayed that a direction be issued by the Magistrate to the police to register the FIR and investigate the case.2. The Magistrate by his order dated 3-1-2001 directed that the application under Section 156(3) be registered in the Court as a criminal complaint and fixed 5-1-2001 for recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.3. Instead of giving evidence, as required by the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 3-1-2001, which has been dismissed by the District Judge by judgment dated 11-5-2001.4. Thus this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has b...
Tag this Judgment!Balram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC910; (2002)2UPLBEC1138
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ 1. Heard Sri N.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Krishan, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 22.1.2002. The petitioner is a guarantor of the loan granted to Shiv Pal Singh by respondent No. 3. It is well-settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Hence, we cannot interfere with the impugned recovery.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should first proceed against the principal debtor before proceeding against the guarantor. There is no such requirement in law, and hence we cannot give any such direction. It is the discretion of the creditor whether to proceed against the principaldebtor or the guarantor. We, however direct that no recovery charges shall be realised from the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of final...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Swaroop Vs. Tehsildar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1096
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard Sri T. S. Dabas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 1st August, 2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took a loan from the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 2 and the recovery certificate has been issued in that 'connection. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that instalments should be fixed. In our opinion High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to fix instalments. Fixing instalments really means re-scheduling the loan. Such re-scheduling, in our opinion, can only be done by the Bank or the Financial institution which granted the loan, and not by the High Court. 4. A writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A writ cannot be issued merely for fixin...
Tag this Judgment!Bansdeo Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Administration) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1359
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri. R. C, Singh, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration). Deoria.3. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition and supplementary-affidavit are ; the petitioner claims to be agricultural labourer. Land in dispute belonged to zamindar who settled the land withthe petitioner's ancestors.Proceedings under Section 122B ofU. P. Zamindari Abolition and LandReforms Act. 1950 (hereinafterreferred to as the Act) were initiatedagainst the petitioner by issuingnotice under Z.A. Form 49Ka. Replyof notice was submitted by thepetitioner on 25th September, 1998 inwhich he claimed that petitioner islandless agricultural labourer. Hefurther claimed that Plot No. 6 area0.405 hectare is Banjar/NadigandakJn which the petitioner is inpossession since consolidation. Hefurther cla...
Tag this Judgment!Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and ors. Vs. Heinz India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC898; (2002)2UPLBEC1060
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The respondent filed Suit No. 733 of 2000 against the revisionists. The main relief claimed in the suit is for prohibitory injunction restraining the revisionists from imposing and recovering any mandi fee of all those transactions of the opposite parties in future by which it transfers stock of ghee to its various godowns/depots located in and outside the State of U. P. not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of revisionist No. 1 for the sale of such ghee at the said places where the said godowns are situated. The revisionists, who are defendant in the suit have yet not filed written statement. They made request for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The said application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh, by the impugned order dated 24.1.2002. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.2. I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the revisionist...
Tag this Judgment!Ami Chand Vs. Smt. Subhadra Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC982
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 passed by Sri Pooran Singh. Special Judge/Additional District Judge. Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 249 of 1975.2. The fact giving rise to this appeal are as follows :The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1, Smt. Subhadra Devi was owner of the disputed plot No. 23, measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas situated in the villageSalampur, Pargana Shikarpur, district Bulandshahr. She agreed to sell the said plot in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 24,000. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid in advance and registered agreement to sale was executed on 23.8.1973. It was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 30.9.1973, on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 19,000. That on 8.9.1973, the respondent No. 1 came to Bulandshahr treasury and purchased the stamp worth Rs. 1,080 for the execution of the sale de...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vijayshree Chemicals (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]38SCL218(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This company application has been registered on receipt of an opinion of the BIFR under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 recorded on 22-5-2001, to wind up the company.2. Notices were directed to be issued on 21-1-2002 to the company and IDBI, to show cause as to why the company may not be wound up under Section 20(1) of the Act, read with Section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). On 18-2-2002, the office has reported that the notices were sent by registered post on 28-1-2002 fixing the matter for hearing today, i.e., 18-2-2002. Neither A.D. nor undelivered cover have been returned back.3. The Court has perused the order dated 22-5-2001 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Vijayshree Chemicals Ltd. (VCL), ('the Company') was declared as a sick industrial company on 18-8-1999,and the Board had appointed IDBI as the Operating agency to examine the viability of the company and formulate a rehab...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chandra Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]38SCL77(All)
ORDERAmbwani, J. 1. This company application has been registered on receipt of an opinion of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 recorded on 26-9-2001 to wind up the company. The opinion was forwarded on 18-10-2001 and was received by the Court on 2-11-2001. 2. On 21-1-2002, the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent-company and IFCI to show cause as to why the company may not be wound up. The office has reported that the notices were sent on 28-1-2002 by registered post A/D fixing 18-2-2002 but neither the acknowledgement due nor undelivered cover has been returned back. The notice on the company is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of Court. 3. The company was declared to be a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the BIFR and IFCI was appointed as operating agency. On 1-6-2000, it was reported ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gangesh Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]38SCL308(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. This company application has been registered on receipt of an opinion of BIFR under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act') recorded on 17-8-2001 to wind up the company.2. Notices were ordered to be issued on 21-1-2002 to the company and IFCI to show cause as to why the company may not be wound up. The office has reported that the notices were sent on 28-1-2002 fixing 18-2-2002 but neither the acknowledgement due nor undelivered cover have been returned back. Today appearance has been put by Sri C.N. Tewary on behalf of the respondent-company.3. The company had filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Act. A scheme for rehabilitation was sanctioned on 17-12-1996. On 29-11-1999 while the review of the rehabilitation of the Scheme was considered, the Board found that the existing promoters have failed to implement most of the major parameters of the sanctioned Scheme of 1996 and that inspite of seven years of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sarare Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]38SCL221(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. This company application has been registered on receipt of an opinion of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 recorded on 13-11-2001 to wind up the company. The opinion was forwarded on 29-11-2001 and was received by the Court on 13-12-2001.2. On 21-1-2002, the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent-company and Bank of Baroda to show cause as to why the company may not be wound up under Section 20(1) of the Act, read with Section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') fixing 18-2-2002. The office has reported that the notices were sent on 28-1-2002 but neither the acknowledgement due nor undelivered cover has been returned back. The notice on the company is deemed to be sufficient under the rules of the Court.3. The company was declared to be a sick company by the Board on 26-4-2000. Bank of Baroda was appointed as the operating agency. On 15-11-2000, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »