Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-25-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC628
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri. R. N. Yadav for petitioners and Sri Manish Nigam for caveator-respondent No. 3.2. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.11.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 18), Allahabad, by which he has dismissed Civil Revision No. 249 of 2002, Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Kalloo. The revision was filed against an order rejecting the application 35-ga for recalling the order by which the trial court had accepted the Commissioner's report. It has been dismissed on the ground that after the repeal of U. P. Amendment Act No. 31 of 1978 and Act No. 17 of 1991 to Section 115 of C.P.C. 1908 by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1999, the revision is not maintainable.3. Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 9.10.2002 in Transfer Application No. 36 of 2002, Lallan v. Special Judge, Jaunpur and Ors., by which it has been held that revisions under Section 115, C.P.C., which were instituted before the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-25-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2181
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri V. K. Nagatch for petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai for the contesting respondent No. 3.2. By the impugned order dated 19.10.2002, the District Judge, Mathura, has dismissed Civil Revision No. 120 of 2002 between Vishnu Mohan and Mahesh Chandra, on the ground that after the enforcement of C.P.C Amendment, 1999 with effect from 1st July, 2002, the civil revision was not maintainable.3. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 9.10.2002 in Transfer Application No. 36 of 2002, between Lallan and District Judge, Jaunpur and Ors., by which it has been held that revisions under Section 115, C.P.C., which were instituted before the District Judges prior to 1.7.2002 can be heard and disposed of by the District Judges, and that the jurisdiction to decide these revisions has not been taken away. This Court relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Smt. Shardamma, JT 1996 (4) SC 90, in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-09-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2500
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petition is heard finally at the admission stage. The amendment application No. 27528 of 2001, filed on 26/27.3.2001 on behalf of petitioner. Is not pressed and it is rejected as such.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are redundant parties.4. Respondent No. 3. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, is represented by counsel and also filed counter-affidavit.5. Present petition arises out of the proceedings initiated on the basisof application for allotment under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') with respect to non-residential building shop No. 80, Pardevanpur. N-2 Road. Lal Bangla, Kanpur Nagar (called 'the shop') informing vacancy and seeking allotment of the same after rejecting release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi.6. Petitioner Ram Shanker Yadav contended that he was the tenant of the shop at the rate of Rs. 300...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-09-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2497
A.K. Yog, J.1. R. N. Bengal, petitioner, is admittedly the tenant in possession of residential accommodation, House No. 109/276-A, Ram Krishan Nagar, Kanpur since 1990 (Para 2 of the writ petition) called the 'accommodation', relationship of landlord and tenant existed, landlord had voluntarily and willingly gave possession of the premises in question to the petitioner-tenant on an agreed rent after having charged advance as premium advance rent (Paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition) and said facts have not been disputed by the landlords, contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 7. There is no dispute that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') is applicable to the said accommodation.2. The aforesaid paragraphs have been replied in paras 6 to 9 of the counter-affidavit. 'Landlord' in the instant case, therefore, admits that the petitioner was inducted as tenant and allowed to occupy the accommodation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-26-2002
1. These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 10th Jan., 2002, for the asst.yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 and are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.These appeals were taken up by this Bench on 5th April, 2002, as the Registry has received copy of order dt. 21st March, 2002, of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter. It was directed by the High Court to the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid appeals very expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. As per above direction, we have preponed hearing and started hearing appeals from 17th April, 2002, on priority.2. The notices under Section 148 were issued for the asst. yrs.1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on 1st Aug., 1997, and as mentioned by the AO notices were served on 5th Aug., 1997. Notices under Section 142(1) requiring assessee to file return for asst. yr. 1997-98 was issued by ITO, Azamga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2195
S.R. Singh, J.1. The validity of the detention order dated 16-2-2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA Act, 1974) is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned detention order is sought to be quashed superadded with a command to the opposite parties to release the petitioner forthwith.2. The petitioner, a suspended Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-1 has been detained pursuant to the impugned detention order made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (COFEPOSA Section) 'with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future'. The detention related Incident took place on 18-7-2000 in which foreign made ball bearings/roller bearings valued at Rs. 3.60 crore and meant for home consumption were seized from the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim, Meerut. The cartons containing b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-16-2002
Reported in : III(2002)BC667
Janardan Sahai, J.1. When the matter was taken up a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable as an appeal lies under Section 20, of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In order to determine the question a brief reference to the facts of the case may be made. A suit for recovery of money was filed by the State Bank of India against the petitioner. The suit was decreed exparte by the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1994. An application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court, which was pending and was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1996. The decree was put to execution in the Civil Court on 30.5.1995. The execution proceeding as well as the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. were transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debit Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 13.6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-15-2002
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC592
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s. Gurcharan Industrial Works, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 27.1.1999 and order dated 19.11.1999, said to have been despatched vide registered letter No. 5803 22.11.1999, contained in Annexures No. 7 and 9 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner has also sought a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 4,74,330 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from December 1987 till the date of payment.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of Rice Mill Plant and its part which fall under the tariff item No. 68 as it was existing during the relevant time under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-11-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1678; [2002(93)FLR1165]; (2002)3UPLBEC2411
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.2.1987 and 4,6.1991 passed by the General Manager with a further prayer seeking directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service as a Fitter in 'Blow Room General Shift Mill' No, 1 at Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., Naini, Allahabad upto the year 1995. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Fitter in Blow Room of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited. Naini. Allahabad (in short called 'the Mills'), which is owned and controlled by the Union of India. In the service card and identity card, the age of the petitioner was recorded year 1935, however, In the provident fund, the date of birth of the petitioner had been shown year 1928 and taking the same, the petitioner had been made to retire w.e.f. 25.2.1987, i.e,, at the age of 58 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1054; II(2003)BC305; [2003]117CompCas366(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 15.2.2002 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi by which it has dismissed the appeal on 7.2.2002 for which reasons were given on 15.2.2002, against the order of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 22.11.2001, holding the reference filed by the company under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, on 13.8.1999 to be non-maintainable on account of undue delay of nearly two years.2. I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Saurabh Srivastava for petitioner company ; Sri H.R. Misra for U. P. Financial Corporation and Additional Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The other respondents have not appeared in spite of notices issued to them on 17.4.2002, upon which the service is deemed to be sufficient.3. Since the matter does not involve any...
Tag this Judgment!