Court : Allahabad
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order/notice dated 28th May, 2013 issued by the Director General, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi under Section 41 (2) read with Section 36 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for short, the œCompetition Act?), and further a direction has been sought for upon the Competition Commission of India to keep the said proceedings in respect of the petitioner in abeyance till the decision of Civil Appeal No. 4766 of 2010 (Rajiv Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) pending before the Supreme Court of India. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of production and sale of the sugar. It has four subsidiaries; they are also carrying on the same business. 3. On 29th June 2009 the Government of Uttar Pradesh/respondent no. 2 published an œExpression of Interest-cum-Request...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(All.)123
1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the Act, dt. 27th Feb., 2004, passed by the learned CIT, whereby he has cancelled the "regular assessment" order dt. 28th March, 2002 (as had been passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-2, Allahabad), with the direction to the AO "to reframe the assessment order after proper scrutiny and investigation and also after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard on all the issues". 1. Because the learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the AO has failed to make proper enquiry into the facts of the case and on that ground in further holding that the regular assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-11,. Allahabad, is "erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" and in cancelling the assessment with the direction to the AO to reframe the assessment order. 2. Because the assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, as had been passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. We have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents and Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, along with Smt. Sunita Agarwal and Sri Satish Madhyan appear for Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur. Notices were directed to be issued to respondent No.4 - State backward Class Commission and respondent No.5 Dr. Devendra Patel. Office report dated 12.3.2010 indicates that notices were sent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on 2.2.2010; neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover was received back. The service upon these respondents, under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court will be deemed to be sufficient. 2. The petitioner is a Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University). By this writ petition, he has challenged the order of the Executive Council of the University vide resolution dated 19.5.2009; the consequential order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All788
ORDERNasir Ullah Beg, J.1. This is an application on behalf of 20 accused under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 561A, Criminal P. C. The accused applicants were convicted by the Gaon Panchayati Adalat of Khajuria Awasi district Sitapur, under Section 160, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 each. The applicants filed a revision against their conviction before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitapur, who dismissed the revision on 17-4-1951. They filed another application for revision before the Sessions Judge of Sitapur who dismissed their revision on 16-6-1951, on the ground that no revision application against the order of the Panchayati Adalat was maintainable in the said Court under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (XXVI of 1947). The applicants have filed the present application in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 561A, Criminal P. C. praying that the entire proceedings before the Panchayat including the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC551
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in two writ petitions delivered on 20.8.1997, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions, and upheld the order of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, disapproving the recommendation of the Committee of Management proposing dismissal of Raja Ram Shukla, appellant in Special Appeal No. 835 of 1997 from the post of Principal of an Intermediate College, and substituting the punishment of reversion, whereby the said appellant stood reverted as a Lecturer in the institution. The judgment under appeal stands reported in Raja Ram Shukla v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Ors. : 1997 (3) ESC 1850 : 1998 (1) AWC 513.2. The issue raised in this appeal is primarily on the question as to whether the appellant - Raja Ram Shukla was a direct recruit on the post of Principal or not on the date when the punishment was awarded and as to whether the punishment of re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All241; 1956CriLJ452
Beg, J.1. This is an appeal by Om Prakash, son of Bahori Singh, resident of village Kantaur, P.S. Marehra, district Etah. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. G. by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, and sentenced to death. The reference for the confirmation of the death sentence is also before us.2. The appellant was charged answer Section 302, read with Section 34, I. P. C., along with two other persons, namely, Lakhansingh and Babusingh for having committed the murder of one Sarnamsingh on 19-6-1054, at about 7 p.m. in village Kantaur, Babusingh and Lakhansingh were acquitted by the trial Court. The appellant, was, however, found guilty. He was convicted under Section 302, I. P. C., and sentenced as above.3. The appellant Om Prakash and the deceased Sarnamsingh were relations having descended from a common ancestor. The grand-father of the deceased Sarnamsingh was one Motisingh. Bahorisingh, the father of the appellant Om Prakash, was the grandson of Zorawar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2879
1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report dated 20-12-1997 giving rise to registration of case crime No. 389 of 1997, P. S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli as contained in Annexure-3. Annexure-3 is a plain copy. Nowhere in the writ petition it has been stated that it is true copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report in question. It has also not been stated as to how the petitioner has obtained it. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition states that a true copy of the First Information Report is being filed as Annexure-3 which in the affidavit has been stated by the deponent-petitioner to be true to his personal knowledge.1.1. The petitioner claims himself to be the Joint Secretary of the Samajvadi Party of District Chandauli.1.2. The petitioner has come up with a claim that one Udai Nath Singh alias Chulbul is Vice-President of District Panchayat, Varanasi, who is contesting the M. L. C. elections from Varanasi constituency on Bhartiya Janta Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC297; (2005)2UPLBEC1362
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the General Manager dated 17.10.2001 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service and also for quashing the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, dated 2.9.2002 dismissing his appeal against the above order.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner while working as Manager of the Kanpur Regional Office in the New India Assurance Company Ltd., was found to have committed irregularities/misconduct in respect of approval of claims of the insured during the period 1996-1998. Accordingly, the General Manager, who was his disciplinary authority, decided to proceed against him departmentally. Consequently, the departmental proceeding was initiated vide office order dated 11.2.2000 and he was placed under suspension. The memo of charges alongwith list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC264; (2000)2UPLBEC1037
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9.12.98 (Annexure-11 to the petition) passed by respondent No. 1 by meansof which petitioner has been given censure entry and his one annual increment has been withheld for two years,2. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing that he should be promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Education from the date his juniors were promoted.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.4. The petitioner is a class one officer and is a member of the U. P. Provincial Education Service Group A. He was posted as District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar for the first time with effect from 24.2.90. Prior to that date, he was functioning as Principal of various Government Intermediate Colleges and it is alleged in para 3 of the petition that his work and conduct had been exemplary, and his record of service has been outstanding. It is further alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3419
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The petitioners : (i) the State of U. P., (ii) the Dy. Inspector General of Police Kanpur Range, Kanpur and (iii) the Superintendent of Police, Etawah, have come up with a prayer to quash the Order dated 12.9.79 passed by respondent No. 1 the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, II, Lucknow in Claim Case. No. 1081/11/78, as contained in Annexure-V setting aside the order, dated 5.10.76 passed by the Superintendent of Police. Etawah dismissing respondent No. 2. Abdul Sagir Khan, Police Constable No. 116 A.P., and the appellate order dated 5.5.1977, passed by the DIG Kanpur Range, Kanpur dismissing the (appeal of respondent No. 2) and the Order dated 23.8.80, as contained in Annexure-VII, rejecting their Misc. Application No. 344-II-79 filed for rehearing the Claim Case which was sought for oh the ground that the department could not get any information about the date fixed for hearing of the aforementioned case.2. The petitioners have come up with fol...
Tag this Judgment!