Allahabad Court March 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.
Registrar of Companies Vs. Kamal Infosys Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas455(All); 2005(3)ESC1618; [2007]74SCL68(All)
Dilip Gupta, J.1. A learned Judge of this Court has referred the following question to the Division Bench:-'Whether this company petition filed for winding up of the company (M/s. Kamal INFOSYS Ltd., Respondent No. 1) having its registered office at Lucknow is maintainable in the High Court at Allahabad.'2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Companies and their Directors are being prosecuted after investigation made by the C.B.I. for cheating several investors, Banks and financial institutions through forgery, corruption and illegal means. The C.B.I. had registered the cases against Directors of the said Companies. Company petitions were filed by the Registrar of the Companies before this Court and the same were advertised in accordance with Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and notices were issued to the respondents. Appointment of the Official Liquidator of the Company was also made and further directions had been issued to him. However, the...
Sri Ram S/O Darshan, Smt. Budhani W/O Ramtawankal and Smt. Jaimala W/O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2981
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Proceedings for cancellation of pattas granted to the petitioners have been instituted under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. The case has been registered as Case No. 64/00-01.2. Petitioners raised plea of limitation. A.D.M. (Admn.), Allahabad through order dated 22.11.01 directed that the plea of limitation would be considered along with the final judgment. :Prior to that, just after filing of the cases A.D.M. had passed a detailed order, tentatively holding that proceedings were not barred by time. Against the order dated 22.11.01 petitioners filed revision being Revision No. 24/01. Revision was allowed by Additional Commissioner (First) Allahabad Division, Allahabad on 16.7.03 and it was held that proceedings were barred by limitation. Against the said order second revision was filed before Board of Revenue by the contesting respondents. Board of Revenue by order dated 12.1.2005 allowed the revision and maintained the order of the trial court.3. Learned counsel f...
Ghanshyam Singh Son of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Its Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1040
S.U. Khan, J.1. In Sanjai Kumar v. Collector Writ Petition No. 13191 of 2005 connected with two other writ petitions decided on 9.3.03 I have held that provision of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act which regularizes unauthorized occupation of scheduled caste agricultural labourer over Gaon Sabha land continuing since before 1.5.2002, is being utterly misused. After the substitution of the said cut off date several members of scheduled caste manipulated favourable report from Lekhpal and other revenue authorities to the effect that the claimants were in possession since before 1.5.02 in order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid sub section 4-F In the said judgment I have held in para 3 as follows: -'Whenever a new cut off date for conferring benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act is provided, people belonging to scheduled caste start claiming benefit of the said Section by creating evidence of prior possession. In view of this rampant malpractice it is most essential that whe...
Committee of Management of Janta Inter College and anr. Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1574
Janardan Sahai, J.1. The dispute relates to the Committee of Management entitled to manage Janta Inter College, Patal Khansi, J.P. Nagar, an institution recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The last elections of the Committee of Management, which were granted recognition were held in the year 1995. A Committee of Management was elected in which respondent No. 4, Dharam Veer Singh was the Manager and K.P. Singh the President. Under the scheme of administration the term of the Committee of Management in 5 years. In the year 2000 two rivals sets of elections are said to have been held-one on 18.6.2000 in which a committee with the respondent No. 4 Dharam Veer Singh as Manager was constituted and the other on 13.8.2000 in which a committee with the petitioner No. 2 Naresh Pal Singh as Manager was constituted. The committee of Naresh Pal Singh said to have been constituted on 13.8.2000 was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools on 1.9.2000. This order was challenge...
Ram Awadh Son of Raghuveer Prasad Vs. State of U.P.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC39
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh and Sri B.N. Singh learned counsels for the applicant and learned A.G.A.2. This application has been filed against the order dated 01-02-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Session Trial No. 184 of 2004, State v. Matuk Lal and Ors. under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by D.G.C. (Crl.) was allowed and the applicant Ram Awadh and co-accused Sikendar were summoned to face the trial under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and co-accused.3. The facts, in brief, of the present case are as under:-An F.I.R. was lodged by one Kashi Ram Yadav in Case Crime No. C-2/2004 under Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 24.7.2004 against the applicant and co-accused Matuk Lal, Ramkeshwar Yadav, Smt Kewali, Anti Lal, Smt. Chukani Devi and S...
Badri NaraIn Son of Shri Katwaru Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2404
Krishna Murari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Though the case has been taken up in revised list no one appeared for respondent No. 2.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that village was notified for consolidation operations in 1962. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming Sirdari rights over the land in dispute which was dismissed by Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation.4. Under a misconception that since proceedings were initiated under the unamended Act which provided for a Second Appeal before Deputy Director of Consolidation and thereafter a revision before Director of Consolidation, the petitioner moved an application dated 17.12.1968 for converting the revision into the Second Appeal which was allowed...
B.C. Sharma Son of Late Sri Mohan Lal Sharma and Ram Prakash Sharma So ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1032; [2005(105)FLR288]; (2005)IILLJ715All
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard Sri S.N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri R.K. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Dubey for the respondents at length and perused the record.3. Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union, is a duly registered trade union under the Trade Union Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Union' and the 'Act' respectively). Its members are drawn from the Northern Railways and is managed by a Central Executive Committee (referred to as 'Central Council') under duly registered Constitution and its Rules and Bye-laws. The petitioner No. 1 was the elected General Secretary while the petitioner No. 2 was the working President of the Central Council.4. The plaintiff-respondent instituted an injunction suit No. 128 of 2004 against the petitioner defendants to restrain them from interfe...
Kehari Singh Son of Shri Ambika Prasad Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2330
Ravindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri H.M. Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, district Jalaun in Criminal Case No. 00 of 2000, whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and recalled the order dated 22.8.200, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, dismissing the applications filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in her non-appearance and the case was restored to its original number at the cost of Rs. 100/- and order dated 22.6.2001, passed by learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orar in Criminal Revision No.105 of 2001, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the abovementioned order dated 12.3.2001 was dismissed.3. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Rekha Singh filed an application dat...
In Re: Ktc Private Limited,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]66SCL241(All)
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Company Petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been fried by KTC Private Limited haying its Registered Office at 117/H-2/202, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur-208005, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Transferor Company or 'the Petitioner-Transferor Company') and Leayan Overseas Private Limited having its Registered Office at 117/H-2/202, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur-208005, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Transferee Company'' or 'the Petitioner-Transferee Company'). The said two Companies collectively have hereinafter been also referred to 'as 'the Petitioner-Companies'.2. It appears that a Scheme of Amalgamation is proposed for the amalgamation of the Petitioner-Transferor Company with the Petitioner-Transferee Company. Copy of the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation has been filed as Annexure-A to the Company Petition, and appeals at page 12 of the Paper Book of the Company Petition.3. It is, interalia, prayed i...
Ravindra Raghav S/O Sri Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Directo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2409; 2005(2)ESC1229
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner 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 21st October, 2000 passed by Superintendent of Police dismissing the petitioner from service dispensing holding of the enquiry under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the appellate order dated 15th February, 2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders contended that no reasons have been given for dispensing holding of the enquiry and dismissal for the petitioner invoking the power under Rules 8(2) (b) of the Rules. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons having been recorded for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »