Allahabad Court November 2005 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.
In Re: Secure Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2007All559; [2008]82SCL286(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Manish Nigam for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Agarwal holding brief of Sri. R.P. Agarwal for the respondent-company.2. In this creditors winding up petition notice were issued on February 25, 1999. The respondent-company has filed a counter affidavit. Sri S.P. Agarwal made preliminary objection namely that the notice of demand under Section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, was not served upon the respondent-company and that the petition has not been filed by a person duly authorised by the respondent-company.3. I do not find substance in both the preliminary objections inasmuch as there is clear assertion that the notice was sent by registered post at theregistered office of the company. There is no denial of sending the notice, and further there is no denial that the notice was not received by the respondent-company. The person filing winding up petition is the director of the petitioner-company. There is no objection in paragraph 2 to the counter-affida...
Shramik Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Pariwahan Nigam, Aligarh Region Through It ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1615
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for enforcement of the Government Order dated 01.07.1999 (Annex. 1) by which the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. has issued directions to all the District Magistrates and the Senior Superintendents of Police that bus stands for the private bus operators be fixed minimum at a distance of one kilometer from the respective roadways bus stand.2. The writ petition has been filed by Shramik Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Pariwahan Nigam, U.P. through its Regional President pointing that the petitioner is a registered association and is aggrieved of non-compliance of the aforesaid Government Order by the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts and because of non-compliance thereof, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Corporation') is suffering financial loss. The Corporation is taking action against its employees for fall of income, therefore, the petition deserves to b...
Deo NaraIn Gupta Son of Late Jagarnath Gupta Vs. Mohammad Ahmad Saleem ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1499
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. This Court finally allowed the writ petition No. 21103 of 1999 by a judgment dated 26.3.2004 quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.95 and holding that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service till 30.6.97 and would be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary and retirement benefits. The respondents were further directed to pay the entire arrears of salary within 8 weeks from the date of the submission of a certified copy of the order. The respondents were also directed to pay the retirement benefits treating the applicant to be in service till 30.6.1997.2. The judgement of this Court was not complied by the opposite party and accordingly the present contempt application was filed on 28.7.2004. Notices were issued to the opposite party No. 1 on 29.7.2004 and one more opportunity was granted to the opposite party to comply with the order of the Court. On 17.9.2004, the opposite party No. 1 filed a counter affidavit indicating that the opposite ...
Arvind Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramanand Singh Vs. State of Uttar Prade ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1016]
Arun Tandon, J. 1. Heard Shri Vikas Budhwar on behalf of the petitioner and Shri-respondent. N. Tripathi on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit.3. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 are employed as Food Inspectors. Vide order dated 19/20 February, 2004 the petitioner was transferred from Community Health Centre, Cholapur, Varanasi to Primary Health Centre, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Under the same order Shri Teerath Raj Pandey, was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Kashi Vidyapeeth to Community Health Centre, Cholapur. Shri Teerath Raj Panedey challenged the transfer order by means of Writ Petition . The Writ petition was allowed Vide judgment and order dated 13.5.2004 and the order of transfer dated 19-20/2/2004 was quashed on the finding that: the Chief Medical Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to transfer Food Inspectors. It: ...
Shoorveer Singh S/O Madan Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1447
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was a temporary Mazdoor working at Ghaziabad. His services have been terminated vide order dated 26.10.2004 after enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, it has been found that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud by preparing fictitious documents.3. In the present case, services of the petitioner were terminated as far back as in 1 October, 2004 by the impugned order. There is serious dispute about the fact as to whether the petitioner obtained appointed by preparing forged and fictitious documents or not. A preliminary objection has been raised that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious retried before the Labour Court.4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jitendra Nath Srivastava v. Union of India (2002) 2 UPLBEC-1453 wherein the Court had interfered in the order of termination. I...
Shiv Prakash S/O Sri Sajan Lal Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1620
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Council and perused the record.2. From perused of the finding recorded by the authorities below, it is clear that petitioner got his name entered as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute in the proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Court. He may never recorded as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute after inforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. He is relying upon entries of 1359 Fasali and of various other years. In case petitioner claims himself to be the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute, he may file a suit before the competent Court. No order for recording petitioner's name as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute could be passed in the proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. There is no error of law apparent on the face of record.3. With above observations, Writ Petition is dismissed....
Mohd. Mahfooz Alam Son of Mohd. Masood Alam Vs. Aligarh Muslim Univers ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1621
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was granted admission in the B.Tech course of the Aligarh Muslim University for the Sessions 2002-03. He appeared in the first and second semester examinations of the first year. By an order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, the petitioner and other 28 students of the first year who were provisionally permitted to attend classes of second year of B.Tech/B.Arch, were found not eligible for promotion and as such their names were removed from the roll of the faculty on the ground that they had not earned the requisite number of credits as was required as per Clause 14.2 of the Ordinances (Academic) - XXXIV (E). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2003, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2003 passed by respondent No...
Billar S/O Badri Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ram Senhi S/O Late Laxma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1415
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record including orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Banda dated 26.7.2005 and 30.9.2005.2. It is submitted that learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 26.7.2005 summoned P.W. 6 Siraj Ahmad, Investigating Officer of the case and Constable, who had made entry in the G.D. on 6.8.2003. This order was passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which provides that any criminal Court may at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.3. An objection was filed on behalf of the accused that in the order-dated 26.7.2005 ...
Knight Queen Industries (P) Ltd. Through Its Authorised Signatory Sh. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC226(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. The issue which is both interesting and significant that needs to be decided in these petitions is whether the goods manufactured and marketed by the petitioners as Mosquito Mats/Coils or Refills would fall under entry titled 'Pesticides and Insecticides' in the notifications issued under Section 3-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 1948 (for short 'the Act').2. Above three Writ Petitions have been taken up together and decided finally at the admission stage itself since all the respondents are represented by their respective Counsel as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2, Second Proviso, Allahabad High Court Rules, 'Rules of the Court, 1952'. Parties have exchanged pleadings by filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and there is no dispute on relevant facts. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the question raised for adjudication in these Writ Petitions is the same and all the writ petitions may be decided by a common judgment.3. For ...
Murari Lal Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1521
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This is a second appeal challenging the order dated 22.12.1999, passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moradabad in Original Suit No. 600 of 1993 and confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Moradabad, vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.2005.3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.3.1993, which was executed by the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the defendant No. 1. According to the version of the plaint, he claims to be owner in possession of the disputed property. Late Budh Sen was original owner of the property. According to the plaintiff, he had executed a Will on 10 4.1989 in his favour just six days before his death, therefore, the plaintiffs right was absolute on the basis of Will in exclusion to the other heirs/ defendants. The defendant No. 2 is mother of the plaintiff and it is alleged that she is mentally challenged pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »