Allahabad Court January 2014 Judgments
Jagjeevan Singh and Others Vs. Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Dinesh Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners-appellants retired serving in Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd.-a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, engaged in the business of banking, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1954, (the Bank) with its area of operation in the State of UP. In these Special Appeals they have assailed the judgement delivered by learned Single Judge on 5.7.2005, by which he dismissed the writ petitions filed by them challenging the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, rejecting their applications for payment of gratuity calculated at one months salary (inclusive of dearness allowance) for every completed year of service and interest thereon @ 18% on account of delay in payment of the total amount. All the appellants retired sometimes in the year 1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Bank sent letters to them accepting its liability to pay gratuity to them calculated at the rate of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Santosh Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Suneet Kumar, J. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company through its Director had obtained a term loan of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- payable in seven years and a cash credit limit facility to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in 2008. To secure the aforesaid loan/facility on behalf of the borrowers, the company created security interest in respect of the following properties: Primary Security: I) Cold Storage Land located at Gata No.329 and 330 Mauza Pihura, Sadabad, Dist. Mahamaya Nagar valued for Rs.16.60 lacs. II) Cold Storage Building and Hypothecation of Plant and Machinery valued at Rs.91.88 lacs. Collateral Security: I) Residential House at 9, Civil Lines, Mathura, U.P belonging to Shri Mahesh Chandra Gautam valued for Rs.73.00 lacs. II) Charge on Agricultural Land situated at Khasra No. 191 and 192, Village Maharara, Sadabad, Mahamaya Nagar valued for Rs.48.00 lacs. III) Charge on Agricultural Land situated at Khata ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanhe Lal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Het Singh Yadav, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly on the application of the revisionists/accused purported to have been moved under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) for discharging them. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. The short question that falls for determination in this revision is-whether the application of the accused moved under Section 245(2) of the Code to discharge them as the charge against them is groundless, can be dismissed on the ground that the summoning order challenged by the revisionists/accused has been dismissed by the revisional court. The question arises in the following backdrop:- The complainant/respondent no. 2 moved the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate, was treated as complaint case. The Magistrate upon examining the complainant and her witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
M.C. Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Commission. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner against the vacant seats for the O.B.C. Category. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure No. 5 of the writ petition). (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit a...
Tag this Judgment!Public Service Commission U.P. Vs. State Information Commission and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Respondent no.2 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act) requesting the Public Service Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred as the Commission) to supply a photocopy of the mathematics Ist paper of P.C.S. Mains Examination, 2007.The Public Information Officer of the Commission gave a reply intimating respondent no.2 that he had already inspected the answer book and since there was no provision of revaluation of the answer book,as such photocopy of the answer book of the relevant paper could not be supplied. Respondent no.2, being aggrieved by the response given by the Public Information Officer, filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Authority, which was rejected by an order dated 29.11.2012. Respondent no.2 thereafter preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission, who, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 12.11.2013 directing the Commission to furnish a photocopy of the answer sheet of the mat...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Uniword Telecom Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Ashok Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No.48250/2013, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are: The petitioner no.1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has been carrying out its activities since 1995. The petitioners' company suffered heavy losses in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-2010. A reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1985") was made by the petitioners Company before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the "BIFR") in the Month of October, 2010. The reference was registered as BIFR Case No. 53/2010. The Board proceeded with the reference and called for certain informations and in its proceedings da...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kumar Tyagi and Another State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 2. The only argument raised in this petition is that the authorities below have determined market value by enhancing it by just 25% without giving any reason while determining as to why 25% of circle rate has been enhanced in order to determine the market value of property in question. 3. The instrument No. 3684 was executed and registered on 13.08.2010 in respect of house No. C.C.-1/016, total area 252.42 sq. meter (measured area 67.07 sq. meter), situate at Avantika Colony, Hadbast, Vilalge Mehroli, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. The proceedings under Section 47-A(iv) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were initiated pursuant to a spot inspection made by Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Ghaziabad and his report dated 20.10.2010, stating that value set forth in the instrument appear...
Tag this Judgment!Chandru and Another Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Amar Saran, J. This appeal was called out in the revised list. Even though, there are a number of counsel, yet none of them has appeared. One counsel Sri Fanish Mishra has sent an illness slip. As there are a number of counsel, we propose to ignore the said illness slip. In Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC, 720, as reiterated in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 it has been held that even in the absence of counsel, who are deliberately not appearing, it will be open to the Court to peruse the record and the judgement of the Trial Court and decide the appeal on merit after hearing the State counsel. The hearing of the appeal cannot be adjourned only for this reason. 2. We have heard learned A.G.A. Sri R. K. Singh and Sri Anand Tiwari and perused the papers of the case. The appellants Bishambar and Chandru have been convicted by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnore and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and three...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Kumar Saroj Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
A.P.Sahi, J. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record and Smt. Archana Singh for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The petitioner has come up before the Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the respondent-Corporation on 6.12.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of the requisite area of land for installation of L.P.G. distributorship under a particular scheme. 3. Sri Paul submits that the petitioner had offered additional land standing in the name of his mother for the purpose of rectifying the said area in order to obtain the said dealership as the same has been cancelled incorrectly. An application has also been filed before the respondent for reconsideration and review of the decision dated 6.12.2013. 4. Having considered the submissions raised and having perused the order, it is clear from the communication giv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›