Allahabad Court February 2008 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.
M.M. Agarwal and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1589
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 24.1.2004 (Annexure-19) passed by the respondent No. 4, by which the enlistment of the petitioner's firm from the approved list of contractors was cancelled. Further, relief has been sought to issue mandamus to the respondents to restore the enlistment of the petitioner's firm.2. We have heard Shri Col. S.D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents.It appears from the record that M/s. M.M. Agarwal and Sons was enlisted in the list of the approved contractors in the respondents department. More Mukut Agrawal was allegedly the sole proprietor of the said firm, who died on 10.12.2004. The name of the petitioner's firm from the approved list of the contractors was struck off by the respondents against which the Writ Petition No. 7731 of 2001 was filed and it was disposed of vide order dated 22.3.2003, directing the respon...
Tinna and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3230
1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material on record.2. The ball application on behalf of the accused-appellants Tinna and Harvansh convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 444 of 1998 vide judgment dated 24-3-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad has been pressed on the ground that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. Report of the incident was lodged after twenty four days from the date of disappearance of the deceased and after thirteen days from the date of recovery of dead body. It is also said that the witnesses are not reliable. When the witnesses being in the near relation of the deceased had seen the deceased being dragged and criminally assaulted by appellants-accused, then why no F.I.R. was lodged immediately thereafter.3. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on meri...
Anjani Kumar Verma Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR599]
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. The petitioner in the writ petition has questioned the validity and correctness of the notice/orders dated 16.12.2006 and 20.9.2007 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as penalty on the ground that on the date of inspection by the opposite party No. 1 of the shop of the petitioner, a child labour, aged about 12 years was working which is in violation of the provision of the Child Labour (prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.4. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was wrongly challaned in so far as the age of the child determined by the Chief Medical Officer child as more than 15 years. The report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 29.10.2007 has been annexed as Anne...
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mubarak Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1328
Shiv Charan, J.1. Heard Sri Prabhakant Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents on the point of admission of the second appeal for hearing and I have also perused the judgments of the courts below and other documents filed on record. From a perusal of the record it is evident that appellant instituted O.S. No. 216 of 2000, Mohd. Ibrahim v. Mubarak Khan and Ors. for partition of the joint family property and the appellant claimed his share 1/3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit and filed written statement and alleged that the property in dispute had already been partitioned in between the parties in pursuance of registered partition deed dated 12.3.1973. Further it has also been alleged that now the plaintiff appellant has got no share in the property in dispute and he has already executed a sale deed/agreement on 4.6.1980 and damages were also claimed from the plaintiff/appellant for illegally occupying the property ...
Devi Prasad Vs. Vishwa Nath Prasad (D) by L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1521
Shiv Charan, J.1. Both the above mentioned second appeals have been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2006, passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh, in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 1993. As both the appeals have been filed against the Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 290 of 1993. Hence, both these second appeals are disposed of by a common order. The perusal of the pleadings and judgments of the court below shows that O. S. No. 76 of 1976 was instituted by Vishwa Nath Prasad and Mangal Prasad for partition of the property of Joint Hindu Family described in the schedule at the foot of the plaint. And it has been alleged in the plaint that there was joint family of the parties and Raghunath Prasad died about 30 years earlier that there was also a joint business of the family. That out of the income of the joint family, properties were purchased by the joint family and hence the entire property is joint. That defendants are not agreed for the partition...
MeekIn Transmission Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Purushottam Soo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(238)ELT554(All)
Sushil Harkauli and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Aggrieved by the notice dated 23.05.2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Collector (Collection) Trade Tax, Kanpur to the petitioner No. 2, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said notice. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents not to realise any amount of trade tax from the petitioners till finalization of winding up proceedings pending before the respondents authorities.2. The petitioner No. 1, M/s Meekin Transmission Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Automotive Gears. Initially it was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 31.03.1983 and was converted in a Public Limited Company subsequently. In 1991 it became a sick unit and made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Si...
Vimal Oraganics Ltd. Through Its Director Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1164
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner filed 12 appeals against assessment orders passed by the Cess Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow relating to period 1994 to 2007. The said appeals were preferred on the same day, namely, 15.10.2007 under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The limitation for filing appeal was only thirty days from the date of communication of order of assessment. The power to condone delay in filing appeal is also limited upto 45 days. Thus all the said appeals, being filed beyond limitation, have been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.11.2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of...
Tejpal of Umrao Singh, Vs. Additional Commissioner,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1182
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2007, passed by the revisional Court as well as the orders dated 4.10.2007 and 31.5.2000 passed by the Collector.2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 praying for cancellation of a lease. The said application was dismissed for non prosecution on 31.5.2000. The petitioners filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 31.5.2000 which was again dismissed in default on 7.3.2006. Again the petitioners moved an application seeking recall on 25.7.2007, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 4.10.2007. The petitioners filed a revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2007.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the impugned orders contended that the Collector ought to have suo moto restored the application since the p...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Through Its Senior Manager, Sh. Shyam Sunder ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008[12]STR423; [2009]20STT529
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the common question involved is whether the petitioners-Banks are liable to pay trade tax under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for renting Lockers to their customers. The incidental question is whether Lockers are 'goods' and right to use Locker can be said to be 'transfer of right to use any goods' attracting liability of tax under the Act.2. In some of these cases, assessment orders have been passed, and in some cases, notices for assessment have been issued. Since, the principle question involved in all these writ petitions is common, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned Counsel for parties, all these writ petitions have been heard together at this stage under the Rules of the Court and are being decided finally by this common judgment. The writ petition No. 840 of 2005, for the purpose of referring to the documents and pleadings is taken as the leading case.3. The petitioner, M/S Oriental Ba...
Shahzad Ahmad Khan and ors. Vs. Mohd. Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)AWC1258
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by the third party-appellants against the order dated 17.11.2007, passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 6, Saharanpur in Original Suit No. 89 of 1999, by which the application 236C2 moved by them under Order I, Rules 3, 10 (2), Order XXII, Rule 10 and Section 151, C.P.C. for impleadment as defendants has been rejected.2. We have heard Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Rakesh Kumar for the respondents and perused the order passed by the learned court below.3. It appears from the record that the 'aforesaid suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 against the defendant-respondent No. 3, for specific performance of contract to sale of the landed property agreement for which was allegedly entered into between them on 13.2.1991, a registered document. When the defendant-respondent No. 3, did not execute the sale deed in pursuance to the contract, the plaintiff-respondents No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »