Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1991All52
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner Maharshi Avadhesh also known as A. B. Shorewala, who has described himself as Founder-President of Rashtriya Party, has filed this petition seeking issuance of certain directions to the Prime Minister of India, the Union Home Minister, the Union of India and 'others concerned' in respect of the matters specified in the prayer clause. At the time of hearing the petitioner, who argued the case in person, elaborated the term 'others concerned' by submitting that notices of the petition may be issued also to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and to a sitting Judge of this Court who till recently was a Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The directions sought by the petitioner run into 19 clauses. In these clauses the petitioner seeks directions to hold inquiry or investigation into certain matters, directions to some holding high public offices to resign from the said offices, and directions to the concerned authorities to dismiss certain pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All343
ORDERBrijesh Kumar, J.1. It is noticed, more often than not, that human mind tries to hide or subvert the truth or to cover it up, as and when it suits him or may serve his purpose best. It has never been easy to find out the correct and true facts but the task is becoming more and more difficult with growing social complexities.2. Various ways and means have been explored and deployed for the purposes of finding out the true facts, at different levels for different purposes. The commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 is one of such legislations through which the effort is made to find out the true facts. But this Act and appointment of a Commission under it, does not ensure that the machinery is necessarily set in motion to achieve its object. There may still be many unforeseen hurdles which often come in the way retarding the progress of the enquiry. The present one is one of such cases where the Commission was appointed, though on 1-8-1991 but, it could hardly function that instant procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1972All97
Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Prakash Pottery Industries, obtained a loan from the Uttar Pradesh Government for developing its pottery industry. A deed of agreement dated March 5, 1966, was executed between the petitioner and the State Government. It required the petitioner to apply the loan for purchasing machines for its pottery industry within a period of one year, and provided for repayment of the loan with interest in instalments. Then followed the provisions:'10. If any of the instalments aforesaid shall be in arrears in whole or in part, the whole sum, then remaining due to the creditor under the deed on account of principal and interest shall thereupon become payable at once and the borrower will be liable to pay the same.11. For the consideration aforesaid and in further pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the borrower hereby grant and transfer by way of simple mortgage to the creditor, all that property described in the schedule hereto to the intent that the said propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2059
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Upadhyay and Sri Devendra Kumar Arora, advocates for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior advocate assisted by learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 26.9.2003 appointing Single Member Commission of Inquiry. Another prayer which was subsequently added is to quash the decision of the State Government as contained in letter dated 25.1.2004 Annexure-16 to the Writ petition issued by Sri Ravinder Singh. Secretary, Handloom and Environment, U.P. Government by which Shri Vijay Shanker Mathur was communicated about his appointment for submitting a report regarding prima facie irregularities found with regard to NOIDA, GREATER NOIDA, Taj Express Way project. It has further been prayed that entire proceedings and report of the Inquiry Commission be quashed.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All258; 1956CriLJ579
Desai, J.1. These proceedings have been instituted against Sri Ratan Shukla, a Vakil practising in the District Judgeship of Kanpur, on a report made by the District Judge of Kanpur. The District Judge made the report on being moved by Sri S. M. Ifrahim, Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur, in whose court the alleged contempt was committed by the opposite party.2. Certain appeals were instituted against the assessment of tax by the Municipal Board of Kanpur in the Court of the District Magistrate. Under Section 160, Municipalities Act the appeals could be filed in the court of the District Magistrate or of any other officer as may be empowered by the State Government. An Additional District Magistrate has the power to perform all the functions of a District Magistrate, so the Additional District Magistrate could entertain the appeals and dispose of them if they were filed in his court.The District Magistrate transferred the appeals to his court. The Additional District Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1642b
Jagdish Bhalla, J. 1. Petitioner, a foreign Power Measurement Limited company having no office in India, engaged in manufacturing of 0.2S and 0.5S Accuracy Class Energy Meters and other metering components has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the decision of respondent No. 1--U.P. Power Corporation Limited to award contract for the supply, installation testing and commissioning of 0.2S Accuracy Class Static Electronic Trivector Energy Meters in favour of respondent No. 5--M/s. Secure Meters Limited, Udalpur, on the ground that the bid of the respondent No. 5 is second lowest and expensive than the bid of the petitioner and as such the decision of respondent No. 1 is not only arbitrary and unreasonable but is also mala fide. Petitioner has, therefore, inter alia prayed to quash the decision of respondent No. 1 awarding contract to respondent No. 5 and further to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to award the contract to the petitioner company forthwit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This Revenue's appeal is directed against the order dated February 22, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 by which he deleted the additions of (i) Rs. 7,38,000 added in the assessment on the ground that to such extent the purchase account had been wrongly debited and also vacated the disallowance of Rs. 4,200 added by the Assessing Officer as proportionate interest in respect of money advanced to Messrs. Manoj Enterprises. In respect of the primary contention (supra), the Revenue's agitation is that the learned first appellate authority wrongly admitted fresh evidence.2. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, Shri Vinit Sahai, made primary submission that with regard to the grievance that fresh evidence had wrongly been admitted, the Revenue's case was that there was violation of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which provision governs production of additional evidence before the first appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1988All30
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition undo' Art 226 of the Constitution has been filed for a Mandamus directing the Election Commissioner of India to exclude votes of the Members of Parliament elected from U.P. and also of the Members of the Legislative Assembly of that State cast at the Presidential Election which took place on the 13th July, 1987. The grounds for claiming the relief mentioned above are these :(a) Current Government of U. P. is lawless fiat and has no right to exercise the right of franchise in Presidential Election, (b) Current Members of Parliament have no constitutional sanction to cast vote in Presidential Election. The grounds taken for the relief claimed are incoherent, unintelligible and confused.2. The petitioner urged that as the elections of Members of Parliament in the State of U. P. as well as of those who were elected for the U. P. State Assembly were illegal, they do not have a right to cast vote at the Presidential Election. The petitioner was unable to sat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All84
Malik, C.J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution was referred to a large Bench as the learned Judges wanted an authoritative decision on the point, whether a Panchayati Adalat can under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (Act 26 of 1947) appoint a commissioner to make a local investigation and make a report?2. The facts, so far as can be ascertained from the papers on the record, are that one Shiam Lal filed a complaint against four persons that they had committed an offence under Section 447, Penal Code, inasmuch as they had broken down a mendh which separated the field of the complainant from their field and had planted mustard seed crop on the land belonging to the complainant. The Panchayati Adalat Bench issued a commission to Sampat Singh the Sarpanch and one Roshan Singh, who though on the panel of panches was not a member of this Bench of the Panchayati Adalat, to make a report as regards the condition of the field after a local inspection. The two commissioners wen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3806; 2005(4)ESC2333
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. The petitioner, Sri Deepak Sharma who had responded to the advertisement issued by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'NOIDA') for allotment of a residential plot in terms of the 'Residential Plots Scheme-2004 (1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') has filed Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 (hereinafter called the First Petition) for a direction upon the respondents to execute the lease-deed in his favour on the basis of the allotment letter and to accept the balance amount as per the Schedule mentioned in the Scheme. Subsequently by means of the amendment application the petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 4.7.2005 published in the Times of India and Hindustan Times on 6.7.2005 cancelling the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the announcement of the aforesaid Scheme by NOIDA he had submitted an application on 14.12.2004 for allotmen...
Tag this Judgment!