Allahabad Court May 2004 Judgments
Vasantt Chitra Mandir and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All425; 2004(3)AWC2334
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of 100% exemption of entertainment tax for five years to the petitioner as has been given to the multiplexes by G.O. dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure-VIII to the petition). The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the G.Os. dated 12.11.2001, 17.1.2001, 9.1.2001 and 13.7.1999 issued by the State Government.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Cinema Hall held by a partnership firm, and petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners.4. By G.O. dated 7.12.1998 the State Government offered three year tax concession under the U. P. Entertainment's and Betting Tax Act, 1979 for those cinemas which are situated in a town having more than 3 lacs population.5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the G.O. dated 12.11.2001 granting 100% tax exemption for five years to multiplexes (Cinema complexes). The petitioner has alleged that the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rakesh Chandra Gangwar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2447
M. Katju, J.1. This bunch of special appeals is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28,5.1999 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38619 of 1998 Rakesh Chandra Gangwar v. State of U.P. and Ors. connected petitions. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The respondents in these appeals (writ petitioners) have questioned the validity of the orders terminating their services. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the impugned orders. Hence these appeals.4. A preliminary objection had been raised before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the employers of the writ petitioners were cooperative societies which were not State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge rejected the preliminary objection and held that there was deep and pervasive state control over the affairs of every cooperative society regis...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Vijay Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2331a
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Devendra Swaroop for petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is working as a Workshop Instructor in the Instrumentation Department of I.E.R.T., Allahabad. He was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.12.1980 and was given regular appointment as Workshop Instructor in the Electrical Faculty on 12.1.1983. He was selected as Instructor (I.C.) in the Instrumentation and Control Department on 11.3.1983 and was required to teach Electronics Measurement (Lab.) and Electronics Instrumentation (Lab.). The petitioner holds a diploma in Electronics from U. P. Technical Board in 1977.3. The Government order dated31.12.1987 changed the designationof Instructors possessing a diploma inEngineering as Assistant Lecturer inthe Polytechnics. The petitionerclaims that he was also entitled tohave his designation as AssistantLecturer, and that he has been makingrepresentation since 1992 for thispurpose. All the Assistant LecturersEngineering fall in...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All400; 2004(3)AWC2341
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises No. 208-C/3, Jokham Bagh, Civil Lines, Jhansi. The aforesaid premises was previously tenanted by Sri Ramesh Chand Agarwal, the respondent No. 4. The petitioner instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent No. 4, which was decreed in terms of a compromise. As per the compromise dated 4.10.1985, the respondent No. 4 was to vacate the premises within one year, i.e., on or before 4.10.1986. It is alleged that the respondent No. 4 did not vacate the premises in question as per the compromise decree and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for execution of the decree, which was numbered as execution case No. 4 of 1987. Prior to the filing of the execution application, it transpires that the respondent No. 4 intimated the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 28.8.1986 that he was going to vacate the premises, pursuant to which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy on 13.9.198...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal No. V. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2352; [2004(102)FLR652]; (2005)ILLJ269All; (2004)2UPLBEC1927
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior counsel assisted by Ms. Bharti Sapru, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, senior counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Vth, U. P., Meerut in an application filed by the Management in Adjudication Case No. 42 of 1998 praying for answering the reference that no industrial dispute survived between the parties in view of the registered settlement arrived at between the parties and the dispute has become stale by efflux of time. A settlement dated 31.12.1974 was arrived at between the petitioner and its workmen represented by Lever Karamchari Union. By the agreement dated 31.12.1974 it was agreed that the dearness allowance which was calculated on the basis of Delhi working class cost of living index would not be paid over and above 1,450 points. The parties also agreed that the Volunta...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2361
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.9.1982 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate order dated 1.5.1984 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr whereby, the petitioner's application under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected.2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition are hat the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop in question and respondent No. 3 is the tenant in question and is doing the business under the name and style of 'Gandhi Ashram'. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop in question on the ground that the shop was required for his son. The petitioner alleged that his son Dinesh Kumar was 25 years old and had passed his Intermediate Examination and had obtained training of Radio Electricity and Motor Winding and wanted to start his own business, but has no place to s...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC1909
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.4.2004 (Annexure-14) passed by the respondent No. 3, and further to issue mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to give charge to the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer, Electricity Workshop Division, Allahabad (hereinafter called Workshop).2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner, an Executive Engineer, stood transferred from Electricity Distribution Division, Allahabad vide order dated 15.7.2003 (Annexure-1), to the Office of the General Manager (Distribution), Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Petitioner challenged the said order mainly on the ground that he had been posted there only a few months ago, by filing Writ Petition No. 31275 of 2003, and this Court vide order dated 24th July, 2003 (Annexure-2) stayed the operation of the said transfer order, and the said petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, petitioner stood transferred from Electricity...
Tag this Judgment!Lalloo Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2752
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. This writ petition is directed against Summary Court Martial proceedings and also for quashing the minute-sheet dated 16.3.1999.4. Petitioner having been enrolled in the Army was discharging the function of a Havaldar (OPR) in 129 AD Regiment when he was charge-sheeted for two offences under Section 40(c) of the Army Act, 1950. He was tried by a Summary Court Martial and was awarded the following punishment :(a) to be reduced to the ranks ;(b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and ten days by confinement in civil prison ; and(c) to be dismissed from service.Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Section 164(2) before the Chief of the Army Staff which was partly allowed by the order dated 16th March, 1999 and the unexpired period of imprisonment was remit...
Tag this Judgment!Gaon Sabha Kahotri Vs. Parshu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2748
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Commissioner dated 28.10.1975 and the Board of Revenue dated 31.10.1984 allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of the petitioner for eviction of respondent Nos. 1-4 (the contesting respondents) from the pond in question (consisting of plot Nos. 220 (area 3 bigha 1 biswa 3 biswansi) and 221 (area 9 bigha 11 biswa) (total area 12 bigha 12 biswa 3 biswansi) on the ground that the suit was not maintainable.2. There was litigation in respect of property in dispute during consolidation operations under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Consolidation Act). In the basic year consolidation records, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents was recorded in Class 111 ('asami' of the Gaon Sabha). The contesting respondents filed an objection claiming that they were hereditary tenants before the abolition of zamindari and became sirdar under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and ...
Tag this Judgment!Har Dev Singh Vs. Committee of Management D.B. Santokh Singh Khalsa In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2770
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Sri V. K. Singh for petitioner and Sri A. P. Srivastava for respondents.2. This writ petition was nominated for hearing to this Court by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 7.11.2001. After exchange of counter and rejoinder-affidavits between 24.4.2003 to 14.5.2004. when the writ petition was finally heard, the matter was adjourned almost for eighteen dates to enable senior counsel, for the respondents to address the Court. He, however, did not choose to appear even on the date of hearing and thus the Court proceeded to hear Sri A.P. Srivastava for the respondents.3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.9.2001, passed by Committee of Management and the order of same date issued by the Manager, D.B. Santokh Singh Khalsa Inter College Partab Pura Agra (hereinafter referred to as the college) and for quashing the entire proceedings including the resolution dated 2.9.2001, claimed to have been pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »