Allahabad Court September 2009 Judgments

Rajendra Prasad Singhal Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC431

1. Heard Shri A.D. Saunders, appearing for the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, the Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri S.N. Jaiswal for the respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 22377 of 2009. In Writ Petition No. 29531 of 2009, Shri S.N. Jaiswal has appeared for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Saunders for the respondent No. 2 and the Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been complete in the last two writ petitions and with the consent of the parties all the writ petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Brief facts giving rise to the above three writ petitions are:Writ Petition No. 24006 of 1997, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30/5/1996 passed by The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Appeal Nos. 59 of 1987 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20/21-2-1987 of the State Transport Authority, (hereinafter referred t...

L.M.L. Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3968

Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri M. L, Lahoty advocate assisted by Sri B. C. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned senior advocate assisted by Smt. Mridul Tripathi appearing for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1.2. Counter - affidavit and rejoinder - affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner is a public limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of two wheelers, scooters and motorcycles having its registered office at Panaki Industrial area Kanpur. The company obtained power load from the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration (K.E.S.A.) which was extended from time to time and in the year 2006, the sanctioned load of the company was 8 M.V.A. from 132 K.V. line. Due to shift in preference of co...

Smt. Savita Vishnoi Vs. Dr. Rajiv Kumar Tewatiya and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC86

Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Sumit Daga, advocate for the respondents-landlord.2. The judgment and order dated 27.8.2009, passed by Upper District Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut in Rent Appeal No. 13 of 2009 as well as judgment and order dated 27.1.2009. passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 54 of 2006 are impugned in the instant writ petition.3. The landlord-respondents preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking release of an accommodation which is residential and in occupation of the petitioner-tenant since last 10-15 years. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties. The petitioner-tenant contended that need of the landlord is neither bona fide nor hardship suffered will be more than that of the tenant, for the reason that Smt. Geeta Garg was in occupation of another accommodation A-41, Geetanjali Ganga Sagar Colony, Mawana Road...

Dr. Deepak Bhatiya and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC48

Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The controversy involved in the writ petition pertains to the consideration of the experience obtained by the teachers while working in recognized institutions affiliated to Central Board for Secondary Education, New Delhi (C.B.S.E.) for the purpose of being eligible for appointment as Principal/Headmaster of the institutions recognized under the Intermediate Education Act. Petitioners have made application for the purpose of being considered for the post of Principal in response to the advertisement published by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, being Advertisement No. 2/2008. Under Appendix-A to Chapter-II of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act for being considered for appointment on the post of Principal, a teacher has to be possessed of necessary teaching experience of imparting education to students of classes IX to XII.3. In the facts of the case the teaching experience require...

Ema India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(All)659

Shashi Kant Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs; (i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction for quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 10.07.2003 for the assessment year 2000-01. (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining Assessing Officer for taking any further proceeding in pursuance of notice under Section 148.2. Brief facts as enumerated in the writ petition are as follows; The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Hi-tech engineering equipments and machines especially Honing and Induction Heating Equipments which are used by automobile and other such industries, and has a registered office at C-37, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur Nagar.3. The petitioner submitted a return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 disclosing his income of Rs. 34,21,360/- The return was accompanied by a final balance sheet, profit and loss acco...

Smt. Rekha Devi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of case no. 3894 of 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar be quashed.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.3. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this...

Bhonu Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Briksha Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC43

Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The dispute in the present second appeal is about half share in Arazi No. 491, area 4 Bigha 9 biswa 6 Dhoor situate in Mauza Menai, Pargana Bhuili, District Mirzapur. 2. The defendant No. 1 Bhonu Singh executed a sale deed in respect of the above land in favour of his daughter Smt. Beily Devi on 22.1.1982. 3. The plaintiffs who are all sons of Jagarnath, step brother of Bhonu Singh instituted original suit No. 141 of 1982 for cancellation of the above sale deed on the ground that Bhonu Singh had no transferable right in the said land. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance. However, in appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the judgment and order of the court for first instance was set aside and the suit was decreed ordering cancellation of the sale deed. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment, order and decree dated 13.9.83 passed by the lower appellate court, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. 5. At the time of admission of the appeal the sole sub...

Basant Lal Banarasi Lal Private Limited Vs. Santosh Kumar Gupta

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3958

Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. The order of vacancy in respect of premises No. 73/16, Collector Ganj, Kanpur Nagar dated 14.12.2006, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 80 of 2004 and judgment dated 10.10.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 6 of 2007, M/s. Basant Lal Banarasi Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. are impugned in the instant writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, he started business in the name and style firm M/s. Basarit Lal Banarasi Lal in the year 1943. Initially the firm started with Basant Lal and his son. It was a registered partnership firm, registered in Bombay, Maharashtra and its branch was running in the premises in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has detailed the pedigree in paragraph 4 of the writ petition as below: Basant Lal / ------------------------------------ / Banarasi Lal Satya Narain ...

Harishchandra Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3956

Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and counsel for contesting respondent.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. As agreed between counsels for respective parties, writ petition is being decided finally.3. The instant writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 16.9.2005, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi, in Rent Control Revision No. 66 of 2005.4. An application for allotment was moved by respondent No. 2 for a shop before Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, on 18.6.2004 which is subject-matter of dispute. The application was registered as Case No. 28 of 2004, Aditya Bhardwaj v. Harish Chandra Vishwakarma. Since shop was vacant, landlord/petitioner filed a release application under Section 16 (1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 18.1.2005.5. Respondent No. 2 was found to be an unauthorized occup...

Vikas Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(1)AWC104

Amitava Lala, J.1. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions are connected and have been heard analogously, the same are being decided by this common judgment and order having binding effect upon both the writ petitions.2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed on 3.6.2009 and 20.5.2009 respectively almost making similar prayers. However, the prayers of both the writ petitions are chronologically set out hereunder:Prayers of C.M.W.P. No. 29450 of 2009:(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) published by Registrar General, High Court at Allahabad.(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide only 50% of reservation out of the total advertised vacancy including the carried forward vacancies after excluding the candidates who belong to the creamy layer.(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus ...