Allahabad Court January 2006 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.
Rampur Distillery (a Unit of Radico Khaitan Limited) Through Sri Lalit ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2497; [2006(108)FLR1210]; (2006)IILLJ948All
Bharati Sapru, J.1. List is revised. Learned counsel for the parties appearing in writ petition No. 15796 of 1998 are present.2. In the connected writ petition No. 14638 of 1996, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present but the Learned counsel for the respondents who was heard earlier on 5.1.2006 and a date was fixed 17.1.2006 as the next date of hearing, did not care to appear on both the calls. 3. As the controversy involved in the writ petition No. 15796 of 1998 and the writ petition No. 14638 of 1996 being identical and the both the writ petitions are connected by the order dated 21.5.1998, the same are being heard and decided together by common order by taking the writ petition No. 15796 of' 1998 as leading case.4. The present proceedings arise out of an order dated 3.4.1998 passed by an authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an application made by the respondent No. 2, Labour Enforcement Officer, Varariasi under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act,...
In Re: Pasupati Acrylon Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CompLJ462(All); [2006]72SCL408(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri R.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This petition under Section 101 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeks confirmation of proposed reduction of equity share capital.3. The petitioner company is doing business of manufacture of acrylic staple fibre. The board of directors of the company, in terms of Article 75 of its articles of association have resolved on 29.7.2005, that subject to sanction by High Court, the paid-up equity capital be reduced by 10 per cent in a manner that the face/nominal value of equity share shall remain at Rs. 10 each, but the number of paid-up equity shares shall be reduced from the existing 6,34,81,2-46 No. to 5,71,33,121 No. of Rs. 10 each and, accordingly, the number of shares held by each shareholder shall stand reduced by 10 per cent4. The petitioner states that on account of cash losses suffered by it due to various reasons and its inability to service its debts, it had approached the financial institutions and ban...
Shyam Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)455; [2008]296ITR25(All)
1. Heard Shri Ravi Kant, senior advocate assisted by Shri Shakeel Ahmed, advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel for the Department.2. The present writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs :(a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the impugned notice dt. 28th March, 2005 (Annex. IV to the writ petition) issued by the respondent.(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from proceedings any further action with the reassessment of the income of petitioner in response to the notice dt. 28th March, 2005 (Annex. IV to the writ petition) for the asst. yr. 1998-99,(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the petition against the respondents.(d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief ar...
Kafeel Ahmad Vs. Smt. Satvindra Kaur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1299
S.U. Khan, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 60 of 1997. Property in dispute is a shop which was purchased by landlady's father-in-law in her name on 17.12.1991. Petitioner is tenant of the said shop since before its purchase by landlady-respondent. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 93.43 P. Landlady in her release application asserted that the shop was required for her husband Jagmohan Singh. It was further stated that previously Jagmohan Singh was doing business along with his father and brothers in the shop of his father, however, after the death of Asha Singh, her father-in-law on 30.4.1992, there was dispute among brothers and Jagmohan was separated from the shop in dispute.2. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 10.9.1999 dismissed the release application. Prescribed A...
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Through Its Prabandh Mantri Sri Vibhuti ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2303
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Review, of my judgment dated 4.1.2005 has been sought by the respondent-workman. Sri B.N. Singh appearing for the respondent-workman has urged that there is error apparent on the face of record in the following findings recorded by this Court:The respondent-workman is neither a Government servant not an industrial worker and is not covered under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The aforesaid Act is a special Act dealing with specific subject, namely, the condition of service enumerated in Schedule-I of the Act, 1946. Since the petitioner was not an industrial worker, the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 did not apply to the educational institution of the petitioner under the aforesaid Act.2. Sri Singh has relied upon paragraph 47 of the award wherein it has been stated that from the 'aforesaid, provisions', it is clear that before imposition of proposed punishment, the workman was entitled for a notice to def...
Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2488
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri K.G. Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist.2. The order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Bareilly rejecting the application under Section 10, C.P.C. is Impugned in the present revision. The revisionist is tenant and he instituted a suit for injunction vide suit No. 327 of 2001, Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr. Subsequently, Ashok Kumar Gupta instituted S.C.C. suit No. 21 of 2001, Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta for a decree of ejectment against the defendant from twelve rooms of first floor situated at B.D.A. Market, Ashoka Complex, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly. S.C.C. suit was for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. An application under Section 10, C.P.C. was filed by the revisionist/tenant bringing to the notice of the Court that since another suit No. 327 of 2001 has been instituted by the revisionist, the proceeding in the subsequent suit pending before the Judge Small Causes C...
Pearl Stripes P. Ltd. Vs. Secure Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All561
1. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by the hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J., on November 29, 20051. In his lordship's order sitting as company judge he refused to pass a receiving order on the winding up petition of the appellant.2. The statutory notice was served on the allegation that goods sold and supplied were not paid for. The company took the defence that the goods were returned, although cheques had been issued and dishonoured. It further stated that numerous subsequent supplies were made by the petitioner, and duly paid for by the company. It is stated as purchases had at first been made the sales tax declaration forms were given ; the case was that on the petitioning creditor claiming undue interest the company refused to pay and this gave rise to the winding up petition. His Lordship has said: '...it is difficult to believe that the supplies received by the respondent-company were taken back....'3. His Lordship further said ' I do not fin...
Raj Dularey Shukla S/O Late Sri Ram Manohar Shukla Vs. State and Gyan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1768
Amar Saran, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.2. This application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings with respect to crime No. 52 of 1985 against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380 and 302 IPC, P.S. Asodhar, district Fatehpur, which was pending as Criminal Case No. 1372-A of 1985 State v. Ram Dularey, before the Court of C.J.M. Fatehpur.3. The allegations in this case in the F.I.R. were that on 9.4.1985 at 4.30 p.m. one Bakshraj hurled a hand bomb, which fell near the deceased Suryabhan Misra and one of the pellets struck the deceased. Hearing the sound of the bomb, some persons arrived there. After some time, the co-accused Girja Shankar armed with licensed rifle, the applicant Ram Dularey carrying a double barrel gun, Bakshraj, Munni, Galku, Shambhoo, Kailashi, Gulab, Kamlesh, Rampal, Bharose, Bada Bhoora, Kalloo Kachhwah and others who were carrying lathies arrived there and Girja Shankar and Ra...
Buddhi Ram Prasad S/O Late Lolarka Nath Vs. the Presiding Officer, Cen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR165]; (2006)IIILLJ173All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was employed as Agriculture Assistant in Bank of India, Naya Bazar Branch. District Bhadohi in November, 1988. He submitted an application for medical leave enclosing therewith the Medical Certificate and pathological test on 3.10.2002 TO respondent No. 2, the Zonal Manager, Bank of India. He further submitted an application for medical leave alongwith medical certificate to respondent No. 3. the Branch Manager, Bank of India but he vide letter dated 11.12.2002 expressed doubt on the authenticity of the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner. The Branch Manager accordingly cancelled the medical leave of the petitioner and directed him for medical check up by a Doctor appointed by the Bank.3. The petitioner did not present himself for medical examination before the Doctor of the Bank and he was also not found at his residence when the Bank's Doctor along with the officers of the Bank vis...
Guddan Son of Harmukh Rai and Tara Chand Son of Kali Charan Jatav (In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1782
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This criminal appeal was filed by two accused Guddan and Tara Chand against the judgment and order-dated 15.10.1980 passed by Sri S.K. Agnihotri, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T.No. 2 of 1980, whereby he convicted accused Guddan under Sections 307 and 323 of Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and three months respectively. He was further found guilty under Section 25 of Arms Act and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused Tara Chand was also found guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months and one month respectively thereunder. All the sentences of both the accused were directed to run concurrently.2. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Tara Chand son of Kali Charan expired and his appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »