Allahabad Court August 2015 Judgments
M/s. D.L.F. Ltd. Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Noida
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Krishna Murari, J. 1. The petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of developing and setting up housing colonies and commercial complex. 2. The tender submitted by the petitioner for commercial plot no. 003 at Block No. M, Sector 18, before the respondent no. 1 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') was accepted and allotment letter dated 12.4.2004 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was put under an obligation to pay a sum of L40,25,24,433.25 being 25% of the allotment money after adjusting the earnest money of 3 crore already deposited within fifteen days from the date of the acceptance letter. The balance 75% of the premium amount was payable within 90 days from the date of issuance of the acceptance letter. In the meantime, public interest litigation was filed by one Anil Kumar Srivastava being writ petition no. 10137 of 2004 along...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. This reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order dated 25 January 2005 of a learned Single Judge. Facts The petitioner manufactured, at the material time, detergent bars in a factory at Orai. The three workmen to whom the proceedings relate were suspended on 5 December 1998 pending a disciplinary enquiry on the allegation that they had committed acts of misconduct within the premises of the factory on 5 December 1998. By the order of suspension they were directed, during the period of suspension to mark their attendance on all working days at 11.00 am in a register maintained for that purpose at the security office at the main gate of the factory. Charge sheets were issued on 11 December 1998. The workmen did not mark their attendance as directed by the employer in the order of suspension. The employer paid to the workmen subsistence allowance only for the days on which they had marked their attendance in the register kept at the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kejriwal Vs. The State of U.P and Others
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi. (ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax -II, Agra Vs. Dimpal Yadav
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The dispute in the two appeals is the same and are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Income Tax Appeal No.174 of 2015 is being taken into consideration. 2. The present dispute relates to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee claims to be deriving income from companies for her services as a Director, income from house property and income from business of purchase and sale of foodgrains. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and, accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.11,52,470/-. While considering the matter, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had acquired lease hold rights over a nazul land along with her husband vide assignment-cum-sale deed dated 31st January, 2005. The said na...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Patel Vs. State Of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. This reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order dated 2 April 2015. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission1 issued an advertisement on 24 April 2014 notifying the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination 2014. The petitioner participated in the preliminary written examination on 3 August 2014. Candidates who had qualified in the preliminary written examination were required to submit an online application for appearing at the main written examination. An advertisement was issued on 4 October 2014 by the Commission notifying that the candidates who had been declared successful in the preliminary examination should visit the website of the Commission for obtaining information in regard to the process to be followed for appearing at the main examination. The four stages with a time schedule indicated in the advertisement were as follows: (i) Date for the filling up of applications online on the website of the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Akash Ganga Airlines Ltd. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, A ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad rejecting the application of the petitioners for waiver of the statutory deposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act, 2002). 2. Considering the issues involved, the facts need not be stated in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioners were granted three different loans on 25.08.2010, namely cash limit for a sum of Rs.5.70 crores, term loan of one crore and bank guarantee for a sum of rupees three crores by respondent no. 2. The petitioners did not repay the loan to the bank and all the three loan accounts of the petitioners were declared as nonperforming assets (NPA) on 30.11.2011. The respondent-bank thereafter issued a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 05.06.2012 to the petitioners for a sum of Rs.5,88,34,...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Prabha Sharma and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ. During the course of the hearing of a First Appeal From Order (for short F.A.F.O. ) arising out of a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Saharanpur dated 6 May 2014, a Division Bench of this Court formulated the following questions for consideration by a Full Bench (The questions have been slightly reformulated to bring greater clarity to the issues involved: (i) Where on account of a breach of an insurance policy, the owner of an offending vehicle has been held liable to pay compensation (the insurer having been held not to be liable) but a direction is issued to the insurer to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, does the insurer have a right to appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? (ii) If question (i) above is answered in the affirmative, to what extent and on what grounds will the insurer have the right to challenge an order of the Tribunal? (iii) In a sit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›