Allahabad Court July 2007 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.
Jangi Lal and anr. Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3598
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 19.1.1971, 21.8.1971 and 19.3.1973 passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act').2. The facts are as under;3. In respect of plots in dispute respondents No. 4 to 12 filed suit No. 222 of 1966 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act against petitioners seeking declaration that they are sole tenants of the plots in dispute. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.6.1966 dismissed the same. First appeal filed by them also came to be dismissed on 27.1.1967. They went up in second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the Second Appeal the village was notified for consolidation operation vide notification dated 6.6.1970. The res...
HakimuddIn (D.) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Shabbir (D.) Through L.Rs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4197
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri A.K. Tripathl, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri A.D. Prabhakar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Sri M.A. defendants-respondents.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants from cutting the trees which' were located in the graveyard. The suit was filed in a representative capacity. The plaintiffs contended that they are the residents of village Nasirpur which is adjoining to the village of the defendants, known as, Sherpur in district Bijnor and that there was a common graveyard for the residents of both the villages. The plaintiffs alleged that there are a large number of trees existing on the graveyard and that the defendants were illegally cutting the trees for monetary gains and that they had no right to cut the trees.3. The defendants resisted the suit and submitted that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The graveyard was located in village Sherpur and that...
Peareylal S/O Govind Ram Vs. Dy. Director (C) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3818
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by Consolidation Officer (CO), Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC). Revision before the DDC was registered as Revision No. 59 Pearey Lal v. Vinod Kumar and others and was dismissed by the DDC, Meerut on 29.7.1980.3. The dispute relates to. agricultural land left behind by Brahma Singh. On the death of Brahma Singh (who died unmarried) his real brother Gajendra Singh (original respondent No. 5) claimed the land in dispute on the basis of succession/ inheritance. Pearey Lal petitioner asserted that Gajendra Singh had executed an agreement for sale about the land in dispute in his favour after getting his (Gejendra Singh's) name mutated in revenue records and after obtaining permission for sale from SOC. Pearey Lal also filed suit for specific performance before the Civil Court against Gajendra Singh. In the said suit Vinod Kumar r...
Indian Industries Association Through Its President Shri Pradeep Ajad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3825
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties including Shri J.N. Tewari learned Senior counsel Shri V.R. Agarwal and Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for Management/Industry owners and Shri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel and Shri A.C. tewari, learned Counsel for the workmen.2. Through these two sets of writ petitions two Government Orders issued under Section 3(b) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 nave been challenged. In the first set of writ petitions filed by Management of different Engineering Industries, Government order dated 15.5.2000 has been challenged. Through the said order wage structure for workmen of Engineering Industries has been provided. Through the second set of writ petitions Government order dated 31 1.2000 has been challenged through which wage structure for workmen employed in Hotel and Restaurant Industries has been provided.3. Section 3(b) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is quoted below:If, in the opinion of the [State Government] it is...
Dr. Satish Sharma Son of Late Sri Tejpal Singh and Smt. Savita Sharma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3699
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been made against the notice dated 31st May, 2007 by winch it has been directed to pay the claim amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the recovery shall be made in accordance with the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1903. The next date fixed under the notice is 6th August, 2007 The affidavit of the particulars of the assets was directed to be filed on 6 th August, 2007 and it appears that defendants/JDs were directed to appear on 6th August, 2007 at 10.30 A.M.2. Instead of making payment, the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner before this Court taking various pleas. So far as Section 30 of the Act is concerned 30 days is the period of preferring an appeal from the order of recovery of the debt as per the notice. Law prescribes 30 days period from the date of issuance of notice but not from the date of receipt. Therefore, if he an appeal now, then it will be ob...
Raghunath Prasad Alias Chhagan Lal (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Jangjeet Sing ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC3588
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of respondents hence, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants were heard.2. This is a second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. In the memo of appeal substantial questions of law were not stated as required by Section 100, C.P.C. Appeal was admitted on 24.9.1980 by the following order:Admit.Issue notice on substantial questions of law as stated in ground Nos. 1 and 2.Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are quoted below:1. Because the courts below have not recorded a finding as to when the contract of tenancy had taken place in between the appellant and respondent No. 1, it acted illegally restraining the appellant from executing the decree for possession which he obtained in Suit No. 125 of 1971.2. Because there being no allotment order in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such his occupation is unauthorised under Section 13 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and is liable for ejectment and the contrary view of the courts below is...
Neeraj Gupta S/O Shri Jwala Prasad Gupta Vs. State of U.P. the Secreta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007All195
Vikram Nath, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 6.6.2005 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. whereby the order dated 5-3-2003 passed by the State Government earlier under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short referred to as to the Act) excluding the petitioner's plot nos. 1059 area 0B-12B-10B and 1042 area 0B-13B-6B of village Rithani, district Meerut (in short referred to as the land in dispute) from the land acquisition proceedings, was cancelled.2. The petitioner alleges to be the owner in possession of the land in dispute, over which he was running a factory in the name and style of M/S Vimco Chemical Industries manufacturing sodium silicate. It is further alleged that the factory was set up in the year 1978. By means of Gazette Notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Act issued on 14.8.1987 and 4.9.1987 respectively certain land was sought to be acquired for the benefit of...
Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. India Coal Traders Through Its Proprietor Shri S. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas138(All); (2007)3CompLJ388(All); [2008]81SCL520(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short referred to as the Act) against Judgment and order of the learned Company Judge dated 8.12.1999 passed in Company Petition No.43 of 1998, in the matter of M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. The learned Company Judge by the order impugned in the two appeals had issued the following directions-(i) M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs. 23,31,072/95p to M/s India Coal Traders within one month.(ii) M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. to submit Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 12,58,830/- with the Registrar General of this Court within two months.(iii) M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. to file Suit for declaration regarding interest liability; and(iv) M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. to file Suit for declaration regarding its other liability.2. Special Appeal No. 16 of 2000 has been filed by M/s Gangeshwar Ltd. for setting aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.1999 and further to dismiss the winding up petition (Compan...
Sunder Lal Son of Sri Dukhi Lal and Prem Swarup Son of Sri Bhoop NaraI ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)AWC4061
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) insofar as it relates to levy of excise duty on unlifted quantity of quota as ultra vires the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and for quashing of the notice issued by the authorities demanding deposit of excise duty on the unlifted quantity of country liquor by the respective petitioners. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 171 of 2002 is being treated as the leading case and the facts giving rise to the said writ petition are as follows:The petitioners had been granted licence under the provisions of the Rules for retail vend of country liquor shop in the district of Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi for the Excise Year 2001-02. The petitioners could not lift the minimum guaranteed quantity of quota for the month of December. 2001. On 10th January. 2002 the petitioners r...
Novamet Industries (a 100% Export Oriented Unit), Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(227)ELT363(All); 2009[13]STR108
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. G.L. Kawal, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Pankaj Bhatia in support of tins petition and Dr. A.K. Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. A.K. Singh, appearing for the respondents.2. By consent of parties, rule made returnable.3 The respondents have filed their counter affidavit.4. The first petitioner herein is a partnership firm running a 100% export oriented unit, satiated in Greater Noida district of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 its partners and the petitioner No. 4 is the husband of the petitioner No. 3.5. The first petitioner has been engaged in the extraction of copper, aluminum, iron, lead and other scrap from copper cable scrap and copper lead cable scrap, imported from outside India. They were availing of exemption of duty from import under the Export Promotion Policy. On receiving an intelligence report that the first petitioner indulged into under valuation and clandestine removal for evasion of custom and excise duty, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »