Allahabad Court December 2004 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Vidya Foundry and Engineering

Court: DRAT Allahabad

1. This appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 48/1998. This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the part of the claims of the appellant-bank towards the interest portion. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 1. The defendant-respondent No.1 is a partnership firm, of which defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners and is engaged in the business of foundry and engineering works. Defendant No.4 was also a partnership firm, but since 1991 it became a proprietary firm of defendant No.5. On request being made by the defendant No.1 through its partners, appellant bank sanctioned term loan limit of Rs. 9 lacs, cash credit limit of Rs. 10.50 lacs and bank guarantee limit of Rs. 75,000/ -. In consideration of such sanction of loan, the defendant No.1 through its partners executed requisite banking documents, on which terms and conditions were also incorporated as per...

Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(1)AWC824; 2005(1)ESC713

ORDERDilip Gupta, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2000 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 23192 of 1998 by which the writ petition was allowed and the approval granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut to the appointment of Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, the appellant in the present Special Appeal was quashed and a direction was issued to hold a fresh selection for appointment to the post of Headmaster in the Adarsh Janta Junior High School, Krishna Nagar, Ganga Khadar, Hastinapur, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'the Junior High School') in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1978 Rules'). The sole question that arose for consideration in the writ petition was whether a teacher possessing the B. Ed. certificate could be considered eligible for appointmen...

Vijay Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2005All181; 2005(1)AWC811

Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri L. D. Rajbhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Director, State Education, Research and Training Board, U. P., Lucknow and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.2. These six writ petitions have been filed by the persons, who claim themselves to be the members of the Denotified tribe (Vimukt Jati), namely, Bhar and Rajbhar, residents of District Azamgarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of their being members of the denotified tribes, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to be treated as members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and are entitled to the benefits of reservation provided for in respect of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates. Accordingly the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the declaration under the Government order dated 20th February, 2004 (as contained in para 4 (a) of the guidelines issued ...

Smt. Paramshila Devi Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Pal

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(1)ARC263; 2005(2)AWC1214

Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the revisional court.2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :That the respondent-landlord, Kamlesh Kumar Pal filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the accommodation under his tenancy being Suit No. 108 of 2001, Kamlesh Kumar Pal v. Smt. Paramshila Devi. The suit was decreed ex parte on 6.5.2002 by the trial court. The petitioner-tenant, Smt. Paramshila Devi filed an application 4C for restoration of the suit with the prayer that the aforesaid ex parte decree may be set aside which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2002. The aforesaid restoration application was filed on the ground that the tenant had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit and the ex parte decree. The defendant-tenant had never been served with any notice nor received any summon issued from the trial c...

Union of India (Uoi), Through General Manager, Northern Railway and an ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC753

Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-employer have prayed for the following reliefs :--'(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record of the case and quashing the impugned orders dated 16.1.1996 and 18.12.1996 (Annexure-'5' and '6'), both passed by respondent No. 1.(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents, not to enforce the impugned orders dated 16.1.1996 and 18.12.1996, passed by respondents No. 1 against the petitioners on any ground and in any manner whatsoever.(iii) to issue ad interim mandamus, staying operation of the impugned orders dated 16.1.1996 and 18.12.1996, both passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexures-5 and 7 respectively).(iv) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of jus...

Savitri (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(1)ARC235; 2005(3)AWC2310

Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1998, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed that there is a deemed vacancy and Rajendra, respondent, is an un-authorised occupant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore, by order dated 18th March 1998 declared that the accommodation in question shall be deemed to be vacant and the matter was directed to come up on 15th April 1998 for consideration of release of the accommodation on the application of the landlord.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, that there is a vacancy, suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not considered the evidence on the record in the correct perspective and the view taken by the authority in declaring the vacancy has erroneously failed to consider that Savitri, who is m...

Ram Janki (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(1)ARC399; 2005(3)AWC2311

Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord challenges the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord against the order of the prescribed authority was dismissed.2. In short the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners are admittedly owner and landlord of the House No. 673 K.L. Kydganj, Allahabad. Late Laxmi Sahai Saxena was the tenant of the ground floor portion of the house in dispute. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of ground floor portion in favour of the landlord before the prescribed authority which was registered as P.A. Case No. 117 of 1989. The prescribed authority rejected the application. Though the prescribed authority has recorded a finding that as comparative hardship of the tenant has not been consider...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and or ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1982

ORDERR.C. Deepak, J.1. The applicants named -- (1) M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., ECC Construction Group, Bhikaji Cama Place, Somdutt Chamber-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066 New Address at 211. 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi 110 020 (2) Shri L. Ramakrishnan S/o K. Laxmi Narayan, (Company Officer deputed on Construction Site) Resident Engineer, L & T, ECC Group, Somdutt Chamber-1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi -110066 New Delhi Address at 211, 1st Floor Okhla Industrial Estate Phase III, New Delhi, 110 020 (3) Sri Pankaj Lalla, S/o Suraj Prakash Lalla, (Company Officer deputed on Construction Site) Planning Engineer, L & T, ECC Group, Somdutt Chamber 1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066 New Address at 211, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi 110 020 and (4) Shri A.D. Huria, S/o Chandra Bhan Huria, Regional Project Manager (B/F), ECC Group of L & T-5. Somdutt Chamber 1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066 New Address at : 21], 1st Floor, Okhla Industri...

Diwan Sugars Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2358; 2005(1)ESC629

Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary, for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yashwant Verma and Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Upadhya, for respondent No. 3, Sri Atul Mehra for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by Cane Commissioner and the order dated 21st November, 2004 passed by appellate authority under Section 15 (4) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A writ, order or direction of appropriate nature has further been prayed commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on five cane centre...

Satyendra Kumar Tripathi and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. Etc.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2005All147

A.P. Sahi, J.1. The challenge in the present writ petitions is to the 26th and 27th Amendment Rules introduced in the year 2004 in Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963, whereby preferential rights have been created under the said Rules in favour of the persons belonging to socially and educationally backward classes and traditionally engaged in the profession of excavating sand and morrum for their livelihood. Since all these writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, the same are being heard together and the present order shall govern all these connected writ, petitions. 2. For the sake of convenience and for appreciating the controversy, we find it appropriate to quote the 2 amendments namely the 26th and 27th amendments brought into by the State Government. These amendments which are presently under challenge, have been introduced in Rule 9 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963. By the 26th amendment, Rules 9-A and 53-A, as they then existed, were ...