Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(3)AWC2102
S.R. Singh, J.1. Challenge In the instant petition is to the order dated 24.12.1997 of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, whereby the petitioner's firearm's licence has been suspended and at the same time, the petitioner has been called upon to show cause why the licence be not revoked/cancelled. The District Magistrate. Azamgarh, purports to have suspended the petitioner's fire- arm licence pending enquiry into cancellation of the licence set afoot on the basis of police report which led the District Magistrate to form an opinion keeping in view the public peace and public security, that the licence of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled and it would be prejudicial to the interest of public to allow him to retain the arms.2. The question canvassed at the bar by Sri Ramesh Ral, counsel appearing for the petitioner was that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of C. P. Sahu, v. State, 1984 AWC 145, the licensing authority was not clothed with the jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All247; [1992]75CompCas672(All)
ORDERV.K. khanna, J.1. Petitioner Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Modi-nagar is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Modinagar and is running a textile manufacturing unit. For the purposes of running its unit it gets its electrical energy from the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) under an agreement executed between the parties. The dispute in the present writ petition centres round the question as to whether the Board can disconnect the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner's textile mills in exercise of its power u/ S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act after the petitioner's unit has been declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. Brief admitted facts for the purposes of adjudication of the question raised in the present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1916All68; 35Ind.Cas.718a
1. This is the defendants' appeal in a suit for possession of immoveable property, which has been decreed to the plaintiffs by the Court below.2. The plaintiffs are five Muhammadan gentlemen and their case is as follows:-- That Nawab Rukn-ud-Danla Muhammad Azmat Ali Khan was the owner of a large estate lying partly in the Punjab and partly in the Muzaffarnagar District of these Provinces, including the properties claimed; that the Nawab created a waqf of the aforesaid properties under a deed dated 25th August 1908 and registered on 1st September 1908; that he appointed himself the first mutawalli and remained in possession as such up to the date of his death on 26th December 1908; that in his lifetime on 9th November 1908, he executed a document, designated therein a 'trusteenamah,' framing rules for the management of the trust property and nominating six gentlemen to succeed him as trustees on his death; that four of these are among the plaintiffs; that one of them has died and the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4967
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Ajit Singh and Ashok Singh against their conviction under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by the judgment and order dated 2-9-1980 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, in S.T. No. 210 of 1978. The C.J.M. Etawah, has given a report dated 16-8-1999 that appellant No. 2 Ashok Singh has died. The appeal preferred by him is therefore, abated.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an alarm watch of P.W. 5 Hawaldar Singh was stolen on the Diwali day in the year 1976. The deceased-Than Singh who was resident of the same village had gone to the flour mill of Babu Ram in village Bhoglpura on the next day for the purpose of getting his wheat grinded. Babu Ram informed him that the accused-Ajit Singh and Ashok Singh had come to his place and had sold him an alarm watch for Rs. 18/-. He further informed him that he had not paid the money to the aforesaid persons but had promised to pay them af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1969]23STC282(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in toilet goods, cosmetics and other articles of general merchandise. It submitted a return of its turnover for the assessment year 1963-64. That return included the turnover of imported goods liable to tax at single point under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order dated 30th September, 1965, determining the turnover of imported goods at Rs. 2,60,000.00. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal it mentioned that the turnover of imported goods taxable at single point was Rs. 85,000 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,001.73 towards the tax admitted by it to be due in respect of that turnover. When the appeal came on for hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Sales Tax Officer that the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner. The objection was upheld by the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2566
N. K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.5.2002 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Prescribed Authority Case No. 2/96 and the order dated 10.11.2003 as contained in Annexure-2 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion on the First floor of premises No. 31/37 known as premises No. 14, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, Shri Zafar Ibrahim. The Prescribed Authority under U. P. Urban Building Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972') has allowed the application for release of the disputed premises under Section 21 on the ground that the landlord opposite party No. 1 has no other accommodation in the city of Lucknow and he desires to live in Lucknow after his retirement from the post of Director General, Police in Patna. The learned Prescri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All205
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through the Divisional Forest Officer, Bijnor, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge, Bijnor, dated Nov. 3, 1971 and the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor dated Nov. 27, 1967.2. Briefly the facts are that the notifications under Ss. 4, 6, and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were issued bv the State Govt. for declaring a certain area as a reserved forest in the district of Bijnor. The village Shahnagar Kurali falls within that area and river Ramganga flows through the reserved forest. Abdul Latif respondent No. 3 claiming himself to be the secretary of the Union of Fishermen and representative of fishermen Biradari of village Shahnagar Kurali, made an application before the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 12 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the grant of fishing right free of c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All442
Desai, C. J.1. I agree with the conclusions drawn by my brother Bishambhar Dayal in his judgment.2. What is required under Sections 240-A and 240-B of the Act is that the land should be held 'or be deemed to be held' by an adhivasi. 'Held' in this context means 'owned by', 'belonging to', 'included in the holding of'. A person can own. land, or land can be included in the holding of a person, without his being in actual possession of it; whether he owns the land or it is included in his holding is essentially a question of title quite distinct from the question, of possession. Title may synchronise with possession but can also be in one person while the possession is in another. Sections 240-A and 240-B do not take possession at all into consideration; if a person has title as an adhivasi over the land it is within their scope irrespective of whether he is in actual possession or not. If the legislature had intended that the land should, not only be held by an adhivasi but also, be in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1459
D.K. Seth, J. 1. A suit being Civil Suit No. 795 of 1994 was initiated before the learned Munsif. Fatehpur. On the basis of the pleadings several issues were framed. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were taken up for decision as preliminary issues and were overruled by the learned Munsif by an order dated 20.9.1996. Civil Revision No. 104 of 1996 arising thereout was also dismissed by an order dated 9.12.1997. These two orders have been challenged before this Court by means of this writ petition.2. Mr. Akhllesh Chandra Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said orders on the ground that both the Courts have acted illegally in overruling the preliminary objections Inasmuch as though the prayer was couched as a relief seeking cancellation of a sale deed in respect of 1/45 share of the plaintiff, it is in effect a relief for declaration of a share in disguise which is cognizable by a revenue court under Serial No. 16 of Schedule II inasmuch as such division can be obtained under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC521b
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of order dated 17th March, 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 thereby dismissing the petitioner from the post of Mechanic.2. Necessary facts as are relevant for just adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition may be set out. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents in the year 1966, having been appointed on the post of Mechanic. In the year 1996, he was called upon to produce documents furnishing details of date of birth and educational qualifications by means of letter dated 2.11.1996 and in compliance, the petitioner submitted certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, dated 18.11.1996 as also the transfer certificate containing details of his having passed 5th standard and indicating his date of birth as being 15.10.1946. In the certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, he was opined to be 50 years of age on 18.11.1996. From a cumulative readi...
Tag this Judgment!