Allahabad Court March 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.
Mawana Sugars Limited, a Company Duly Incorporated Under the Provision ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1941
Vineet Saran, J.1. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the 7 cane centres, namely, (i) Paharpur-II; (ii) Kunda/Pinai-II; (iii) Niloha-IV; (iv) Naglashekhu-II; (v) Navipur/Lalpur-II; (vi) Nagli Sadhararipur-II; and (vii) Incholi-III. For the current crushing season 2005-06, the said centres were reserved in favour of the petitioner M/s Mawana Sugar Ltd. (for short 'petitioner-mill') and assigned in favour of Respondent No. 3 D.C.M. Sriram Industries Ltd., unit Daurala Sugar Works (for short 'respondent-mill').2. The brief facts of this case are that for the current crushing season 2005-06, for the petitioner and respondent mills, two separate orders dated 1.10.2005 were passed by the Cane Commissioner under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'). By such orders (which are commonly known as the 'reservation orders'), cane centres were reserved and assigned in favour of the two sugar mills. For the crushing seasons...
Shitla Prasad Yadav and anr. Vs. Faridan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3223
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the parties are not present.2. The aforementioned application has been filed on behalf of Shitla Prasad and Kashi Nath, plaintiff-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the second appeal.3. It is, inter alia, prayed in the aforementioned application that the second appeal be dismissed, as the matter has 'been compromised amicably between the parties outside the Court.4. The aforementioned application is supported by a joint affidavit, sworn on 18.5.1992 by the said Shitla Prasad (plaintiff-appellant No. 1) and the said Kashi Nath (plaintiff-appellant No. 2).5. It is, inter alia, stated in the said affidavit that the parties in the second appeal have compromised the dispute outside the Court ; and that the plaintiffs-appellants do not want to peruse the second appeal any further ; and that the plaintiffs-appellants want that the second appeal be dismissed.6. Copy of the aforementioned application was served on the lear...
Mohammad Umar Son of Mohammad Noor, Vs. State of U.P. and Gulam Navi S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2263
Vinod Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA2. As agreed between the parties, this application is finally disposed off at the admission stage itself.3. A FIR was filed against the applicants as crime No. 587/03 Under-section 364, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IP.C, at P.S. Kotwali Pilibhit. After investigation of the case, the police submitted a F.R. The protest petition, filed by the informant was registered as a complaint and the Magistrate started proceedings with the case as a complaint case However, as has been stated in the present application, the Magistrate did not record the statements of all the witnesses of the prosecution as is mandated Under-section 202(2) Cr. PC. proviso. It is pointed out at this stage that Section 364 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions The counsel for the applicants contended that in the absence of recording of statement of all the witnesses of the prosecution, the Magistrate committed an illegality in summoning the applican...
Kapoor Fire Works Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST76(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These eleven revisions are by different dealers against common orders dated 17.12.2003 and 5.3.2004 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-II, Agra under Sections 10 and 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter to referred as the Act) respectively. Common questions of law are involved, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. The State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 7-D of the Act, floated a scheme popularly known as composition/compounding scheme 1994. The said scheme is dated 24th May, 1994 and is applicable to the assessment year i.e. 1994-95, which is the relevant assessment year involved in all these cases. The said scheme is applicable only to small dealers whose turnover for the immediately preceding assessment year 1993-94 in U.P. and Central was not more than Rs. 5 Lakhs and in the assessment year 1994-95 they fulfill the conditions enumerated therein and are not excluded by Clause-2 of th...
Mohd. Sharfaraz, S/O Shri Abbas Khan Vs. the Deputy Director (Administ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2879
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. This Special Appeal under the Rules of this Court arises out of order dated 14.2.2006 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging order dated 12.1.2006 transferring petitioner-appellant from Mandi Samit, Bareilly to Mandi Samiti, Bahedi i.e. within the same district.2. Sri Mahesh Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that under Regulation 24(2) of Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 1984 Regulation), group 'D' employee of the Mandi Samiti cannot be transferred even within the district or region, if there does not exist any special circumstance. It is contended that in the absence of any special circumstance, the Deputy Director (Administration) has no authority or jurisdiction to transfer any group 'D' employee. It is also submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition transferring the appellan...
Sri Satish Chand Kakkar S/O Sri P.D. Kakkar and ors. Vs. Vii Additiona ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1961
S.U. Khan, J.1. Both these writ petitions are directed against judgments, decree and order passed in the same cases. Some tenants-defendants in S.C.C. Suit No. 255 of 1983 on the file of Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad have filed the first writ petition and other defendants-tenants have filed the second writ petition.2. Landlord Mohan Ji Tandon had filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against 11 defendants-tenants. The suit was decreed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. through judgment and decree dated 11.3.1991. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Revision (ought to be S.C.C. Revision) No. 46 of 1991, was filed by the tenants, which was dismissed by VIIth A.D.J. Allahabad on 30.9.1993, hence these writ petition.3. Landlord Mohan Ji Tendon-respondent in both the writ petitions purchased the property in dispute which is a shop bearing No. 40/1977 and is situate at Chowk Market Allahabad through registered sale deed ! dated 14.2.1979...
Lala Ram Autar Son of Lala Banarasi Das Vs. the Iind Additional Distri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1959
S.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition was initially allowed on 5.12.2005 without hearing any one on behalf of tenants respondents as on said date no one had appeared on their behalf. Later on restoration/ rehearing application was filed, which was allowed on 6.2.2006 and judgment dated 5.12.2005 was set-aside. Thereafter learned Counsel for both the parties were heard on the merits of the writ petition on 13.2.2006 and 15.2.2006. On 15.2.2006 after completion of argument of learned Counsel for both the parties' judgment was reserved.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by him against tenant respondent No. 3 and 4 Pratahu Dayal and Net Ram. The suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 39. of 1981. The eviction was sought on the ground of default and sub-letting. It was alleged in the plaint of the suit that Prabhu Dayal had been allotted the house in dispute; that Prabhu Dayal had constructed his own house and had shifted therein along with his family and h...
Committee of Management, GangadIn Ram Kumar Inter College Through Its ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)AWC3731
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. First four appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 and writ petition No. 28384 of 1993. Last two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and writ petition No. 34814 of 1999. They can be conveniently referred to as' first set of appeals' and ' second set of appeals'.2. We have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekher, learned Counsel for the appellants in first set of appeals and for respondents in second set of appeals. Sri Sada Nand Shukla and Sri B.D. Mandhyan have appeared for the respondents in first set of appeals and Sri Sada Nant Shukla has appeared for the appellants in second set of appeals.3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to both sets of appeals are:Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Bar...
Ramesh Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2247
Vinod Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, through the present writ petition, has Challenged his detention order under Section 3(2) of The National Security Act 1980 (herein after referred to as the Act), passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi respondent No. 2, on 30-4-2005, annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.2. The grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner indicate that Ajit Kumar Jain, resident of 221, Jawahar Extension, Bhelupur, District Varanasi is the father of Anmol Jain aged about 13 years, a student of class VI of St. John's School, Maduadhih District Varanasi. On 14-3-2005 his driver Ram Prasad took Anraol Jain to school and was bringing him back in a Maruti Zen car UP 53 P 5821, when at 3 P.M., near the FCI godown a white Tata Sumo overtook them and the occupants of Tata Sumo abducted them (Anmol Jain and Ram Prasad driver). Ajit Kumar Jain, father of Anmol Jain, lodged a report at police station Maduadhih District Varanasi at 3,35 P.M. regarding the said abduction ...
Siraj Ahmad Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2163
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 18th February, 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).2. The dispute relates to an accommodation on the first floor of House No. 12/69. Chowk Bundu Khan, Tantanpara. Aligarh.3. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed accommodation.'4. It appears that Kumari Shamim Begum (respondent No. 2 herein) moved an application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act'), inter alia, praying for declaration of vacancy in respect of the disputed accommodation, and further, for release of the disputed accommodation in her (Kumari Shamim Begum's) favour. The declaration of vacancy was sought on the ground that Siraj Ahmad (petitioner herein) was In unauthorized occupation of the disputed accommodation.5. It appears that the Rent Control Inspector s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »