Allahabad Court April 2011 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.
Shyam Bahadur Sakhya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the relief and challenges are inter-connected. We may first set out and deal with the facts and issues of Writ Petition No.9416 (M/B) of 2010. The petitioner has moved this Court complaining of violation of Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in exercise of powers under sub-section 1 and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Act) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Rules), which was issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27 th January, 1994. The allegation is that the State of U.P. and its authorities have failed to carry out the directions as contained in the notification.2. It is the petitioners grievance that the authori...
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. The revenue has preferred these revisions against the common order of the tribunal dated 30.3.2011 whereby the seized goods have been permitted to be released on payment of twice the tax admissible on the estimated value of the goods.2. Sri Piyush Agrawal has put in appearance on behalf of respondent in both the revisions.3. Learned counsel for both the parties consent for final disposal of the revisions on merits at the stage of admission itself.4. I have heard learned Standing counsel and Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.5. The only question of law which has been raised in these revisions is whether the tribunal is legally justified in reducing the security of 40% of the estimated value of the goods to twice the amount of tax imposable on the value of the goods so estimated.6. Chapter VIII of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act provides for the penalty. In section 54 it has been provided that where the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or person has c...
Gopal singh visharad and ors Vs. jahoor ahmad and others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. These objections have been filed against the draft decree prepared by Registrar of this Court pursuant to judgment dated 30.09.2010 whereby four original suits were decided. The suits were initially filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad wherefrom transferred to this Court pursuant to order dated 10.07.1989 passed on applications made by State of U.P. The matter was heard by a Special Bench consisting of three Judges constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice as requested by Division Bench in the order dated 10.07.1989 whereby transfer was allowed. 2. The suits were decided on 30.09.2010. All the three Judges have given their separate decisions. The decree, therefore, has to be prepared in the light of majority decision or unanimous decision, if any, though contained in separate decisions of all the three Judges. 3. For the purpose of preparation of decree the procedure prescribed in the High Court Rules read with Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has to ...
Dr. Vimal Kumar Lahari Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 23/28 th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (the University) in so far as the Chancellor of the University has accepted the recommendations of the Executive Council of the University to cancel the petitioner's selection as Lecturer in Sociology in reserved category of Scheduled Caste by the Selection Committee on the ground that a vigilance enquiry into the conduct of the outgoing Vice Chancellor is pending and that there is possibility of delay in concluding the enquiry.3. We are called upon to answer the question, as to whether the pendency of the vigilance enquiry, initiated by the ...
Moti Ram GuptA. Vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Patni (Since Dead) and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. In the present revision the revisionist is challenging the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Agra in S.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2000 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and the defendant-revisionist has been directed to evict the premises in dispute and pay rent from 1 st March, 2000 @ Rs.3,320/- per month.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against respondent no. 2 and the revisionist, who was defendant no. 2, in the suit.3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff has let out a newly constructed pukka tin shed in a portion of the compound premises no. 20/82, Jamuna Kinara Chhatta Ward, Agra to defendant no. 1 Shri Ram Niwas Gupta on a rent of Rs.1400/- per month. The measurement of the area was 37' 8 x 32' 10. The liability to pay the tax was on defendant no. 1. The plaintiff and the defendants have entered into an agreement on 20.1.1984 in this regard. On the request of defendant no. 1, the ...
Org Informatics Ltd. Vs. M.P. State Electronics Dev.Corp.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The first respondent invited bids by way of tenders for a certain project. The tenders consisted of three parts namely (1) pre-qualification bid (2) technical bid and (3) financial bid. The tender conditions permitted the tenders to be submitted by any organization/company or a consortium. 2. The writ petitioner formed a consortium (hereinafter in this order referred to as the consortium) with the third respondent i.e. Wipro Ltd. Amongst the members of the consortium, the petitioner declared itself as the prime bidder. ‘Prime bidder’ means some kind of a managing partner of a consortium, who acts on behalf of the consortium and with whom interaction in respect of the bidding activities is to take place. In respect of the tender submitted by it, the said consortium qualified in evaluation of the pre-qualification bid and thereafter also qualified in the evaluation of the technical bid. However, for passing these two stages, membership of the Wipro in the consortium played...
Smt.Jyoti Mittal Vs. Maulana Azad National Institute
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. Challenging the action of the respondents in denying regularization to the petitioner and apprehending that her services may be brought to an end, this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry with effect from the date she was given adhoc appointment on the said post. 2. Petitioner claims to be a Post Graduate in Chemistry and having done her M.Phil in the year 1994 from IIT, Roorkee, she is also said to have done her Ph.D for the said subject. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.1.2000, vide order - Annexure P/1 petitioner was granted appointment as a Visiting Faculty by the respondents on a payment of ` 80/. per period. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously engaged as a Visiting Faculty on part.time basis upto the year 2004 vide orders collectively filed as Annexure P/2. According to the petitioner as the respondent Institute wa...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the case is finally heard. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.169/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli, whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the applicant. 2. The trial court convicted the applicant for an offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and f ine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three month. 3. The applicant is a truck driver. 4. The prosecution case that has been proved against the applicant is that he voluntarily assisted in 2 making away with 17.8 tons of coal which he had reason to believe to be stolen property. First information report, Ex.P/2, of the incident was lodged by Haripratap Singh (P.W.2). The stolen coal along with his...
Omkar Singh. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. In the instant petition, the petitioner who is a Janpad Member of the Janpad Panchayat Karkeli, District Umaria, has sought quashing of the direction given in para 5 of the order of the Commissioner Rewa Division dated 7.12.2007. 2. It appears that the petitioner was an accused in a Crime Case No.160/06 under Sections 395, 458 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kuthla, District Katni, and, therefore, he was not able to attend the meetings of the Janpad Panchayat. Consequently, the Collector (respondent No.3) issued a show cause notice dated 14.8.2007 to the petitioner under Section 36(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993 for short) as to why he should not be placed under suspension under the provisions of the Act. He accordingly submitted his reply on 17.9.2007 stating that in the aforesaid criminal case, he has been acquitted by the...
Mohan Lal Agrawal and ors. Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohinuddin Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Subhash Vidyarthi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. Controversy in present case relates to a house situate in Mohalla Misterganj, Pargana and Tehsil, Biswan, District Sitapur owned by one Ramdin (now deceased), initially under tenancy of late Sumer Chandra Agarwal, father of petitioners thereafter with them on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-.3. Sri Ramdin filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 for release of the house under the tenancy of the petitioners.4. Petitioners/tenants contested the said application by filing objection on the ground that Ramdin has two sons namely Ram Swaroop and Girdhari and two daughters who are still alive, as such the substitution application moved by respondent nos. 3 & 4 is not maintainable.5. It has also been pleaded by the tenants that one of son of Ramdin namely Sri Ram Swaroop fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »