Allahabad Court February 2004 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.
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Shiv Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1823
Amar Saran, J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. represented by the Secretary, P.W.D., Lucknow, and others against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2379795 whereby the learned single Judge had issued two directions to the appellants. One, to prepare a regularisation scheme in respect of work charged employees if not already prepared, and two to pay the petitioners (Respondents 1-3 in the Special Appeal) salary at the same rate as other regular employees of the U.P. Public Works Department (P.W.D) working on the same posts as the petitioners until their absorption on the said posts pursuant to a scheme for regularisation of work charged employees.2. We have heard Sri Abhinava Upadhya, standing counsel for the appellants, and Sri L. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and the entire material on record including the writ petition. We have also considered the written submissions furnishe...
VipIn Kumar Gupta Vs. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All319; IV(2004)BC524; [2006]131CompCas498(All)
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties,2. The petitioner took a loan in respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued. The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court should fix instalments. In our opinion under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court has no power to fix instalments.3. Fixing instalments is really rescheduling of the loan, which can only be done by the Bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan. A large number of petitions are being filed before us in which the only prayer is that the High Court should fix instalments or grant one time settlement. In our opinion the High Court has no power to fix instalments or to grant one time settlement. Fixing instalments or granting one time settlement is really rescheduling of the loan which the High Court cannot do only the Bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan can do so. These are really the contractual matters and the High Court cannot interfere with t...
Gajadhar Singh and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3097
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by me on 26th February, 2004 and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties the same was dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, which is approximately two years. It is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants that the petitioners have earlier filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 4032 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court on 3rd February, 2004. The record of the earlier writ petition has also come before this Court, along with the records of present case. The earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioners with the similar prayer as that of the prayer made in the present writ peti...
Rifakat Ali and anr. Vs. Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All262; 2004(2)AWC1536
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners, who are judgment debtors, filed an objection to the further execution of the decree on the ground that the heirs of the deceased-decree holder have not been brought on the record and, therefore, this execution cannot proceed. The executing court rejected this objection and continued with the execution. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court has categorically recorded a finding that there is no dispute that during the pendency of the execution and after the death of the deceased decree holder their heirs have executed a relinquishment deed in favor of remaining decree holders. In this view of the matter provision of Order XXI Rule 15 is applicable and there is no defect which may bar the execution of the decree.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Asthana, argued that reading Order XXII Rule 12, C.P.C. a...
Pardeshi and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial/First) and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1537
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondents.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Triveni Shanker appearing for the respondents that there is a statutory alternate remedy of filing revision under Section 333 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the impugned order dated 12.9.2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in the revision which was filed by the respondents, hence the writ petition cannot be entertained.3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents are : a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were initiated on 18.7.1.995 by the contesting respondents. Order was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer dated 14.8.2001 rejecting the application. A revision was filed by the contesting respondents against the said order before the Additional...
Audhyogik Gases (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1811
M. Katju, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the District Judge, Jhansi dated 24.1.1998 in Misc. Case No. 242 of 1995.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The dispute relates to the payment of price variation of 6 running contracts of supply of Dissolved Acetylene (D.A.) Gas claimed by the appellant from the respondent Railways. The facts of the case are that the Deputy Controller of Stores, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi gave tenders for supply of D.A. gas to the claimant. In response to the same the claimant made an offer dated 29.9.1986 for supply of the gas. In the contract entered into between the parties there was a price variation clause which stated that the price of D.A. gas will decrease/increase by Rs. 6 cubic metre for every decrease/ increase of Rs. 15 per metric ton in the average cost of procurement of calcium carbide. Any decrease in rate of D.A. gas will be refunded by the appellant within 15 days of finalisation of its...
Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ( ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(All)46; [2004]266ITR664(All)
M. katju J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice dated March 18, 1994, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 1990-91 (vide annexure 4 to the writ petition). In the alternative the petitioner has also challenged the order dated March 19, 1994 (vide annexure 6 to the petition), by which the return filed under Section 139(1) in compliance of notice under Section 148 has not been accepted. It is prayed that the return under Section 139(1) in compliance of notice under Section 148 be accepted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its head office at Varanasi. The petitioner established a vanaspati manufacturing unit which started production from March 29, 1990. The petitioner maintains account on mercantile basis.4. For the assessment year 1990-91, the petitioner filed a return under the Income-tax Act on December 31, 1990, declari...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1441; [2004(101)FLR823]; (2004)2UPLBEC1261
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.2. This petition is directed against an order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.2.1998 by which it has recorded a finding that a settlement dated 5.4.1975 was reached outside conciliation proceedings.3. Brief facts for decision of this petition are that in 1969, 110 workers were promoted as fitters grade 'A'. Subsequently another batch of 218 fitters were also promoted as fitters grade 'A'. It appears that pay revision became effective from 1.10.1973 and thus the second batch of fitters approached the management for determination of their promotion in order to get the benefit of their pay revision in the original cadre of fitters grade 'B'. This demand was accepted by the management on the basis of a settlement dated 5.4.1975 whereby the date of promotion of these 218 workmen was deferred to 1.10.1973 conferring the benefits of wage revision. The result was that even though the first batch of 110 workers who were though...
indra Nath and anr. Vs. Smt. Kitabun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All326
K.S. Rakhra, J.1. The defendant, who has lost in the two Courts below in a suit for specific performance, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1993 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Unnao by which the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1993 of I Additional Munsif, Unnao in regular suit No. 79 of 1980; Smt. Kitabun and others v. Shri Kalka, was confirmed.2. The respondents brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 21st July 1979, alleged to have been executed by Kalka, (original appellant) in favour of Sultan Ahmed, who died on 20-8-1980. The suit was brought by his heirs after the death of Sultan Ahmed. It was contested by Kalka inter alia on the ground that he had not executed the agreement in question for consideration of Rs. 17,000/- nor had obtained a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as an advance nor did he deliver possession of the land in question to Sultan Ahmed. The land in question was agricultural land and Kalka was Harijan. He also contest...
Sardar Prem Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC455
M. Katju, J.1. In this petition the name of Sri Kuldeep Saxena has been shown for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank of Baroda states that whenever the case is listed an illness slip is sent by the petitioner. Since the impugned recovery is of more than Rs. 60 lakhs (sixty lakhs) we are not inclined to adjourn this petition.2. The order sheet of the case of 7.11.2000 shows that there is a detailed order of the Division Bench of this Court stating that this is the 7th writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery. In our opinion this is clear abuse of the process of the Court. In the order dated 7.11.2000 it has also been stated that prima facie the allegations of the respondents appear to be correct.,3. The petitioner has prayed for one time settlement, but it is well settled that there is no right to a party to get one time settlement vide MM. Accessories v. U.P. Financial Corporation, 2002 ALR 261.4. Granting one time settlemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »