Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-08-2010
1. Heard S/sri Umesh Chandra and Nageshwar Rao, Senior Advocates, assisted by Sri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners and Sri Jyotendra Mishra, learned Advocate General, duly assisted by Government Advocate. 2. As in all the aforesaid writ petitions, question of law was involved and as such, both the parties consented for deciding the matter finally without exchange of pleadings, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, all the writ petitions are being deciding by a common order. 3. In all the afore-captioned writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the validity of the Government Order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government directing the police to register cases or initiate action under Sections 272/273 IPC inter alia on the ground that it has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights of the employee's and agents of the Company as available under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and have consequently prayed for quashing of the FIR registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev Kumar; Shri Salil Kumar Rai, Shri Uma Nath Pandey; Smt. Sarita Shukla and others for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel, Shri M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri J.N. Maurya, Standing Counsel have appeared for the State respondents. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh has appeared for 'Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority' (in short, 'YEIDA'). Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Yashwant Varma has appeared for Jaypee Infratech Ltd.2. In these writ petitions, the land owners, bhumidhars, lessees and persons having variety of rights over the subject land, have challenged the notifications issued by the Government of U.P. under sub section (1) of Section 4, applying the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-07-2010
1. Both these applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. RC NO 1(S) 2003/SIC IV/LKO, CBI v. Rajiv Gulati and others, u/s 275/420 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, U.P. 2. As both the applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing the proceedings of the same case, hence are being decided by a common order. 3. It appears from the record of the case that an F.I.R. was lodged by O.P. No. 1, Dr. Sharad Gupta against the applicants Rajiv Gulati and Sandeep Gupta at Police Station New Agra, District Agra, on 30.8.2002 at 8.00 P.M. It was alleged in the FIR that the informant himself is a doctor, whose father Sri Devbrat Gupta was suffering from diabetes for the last about 15 years. For the control of diabetes he was using 30/70 U-100 Huminsulin of Eli Lilly Company for the last three years. On 24.6.2002 at about 12.00 in the noon the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-22-2010
1. Smt. Alka Rai,widow of slained Bhartiya Janta Party MLA Krishna Nand Rai from Mohammadabad Constituency, district Ghazipur and herself an Ex. MLA, has knocked the door of this court under Contempt of Court's Act, 1971( herein after referred to as the Act) through instant Criminal Misc. Contempt Application, clamouring and praying that opposite party Miss Mayawati, Chief Minister of the State of U.P., be punished under section 12 of the Act for committing criminal contempt as is defined under section 2 (c) (ii) of the Act by making such a scurrilous speech in a public rally favouring Mukhtar Ansari, an accused murderer of her slained husband,which "scandalises and lower the authority of the court" and "interferes or tends to interfere with due course of judicial proceeding" of S.T.No. 253 and 254 of 2006, relating to crime number 589 of 2005, U/S 147,148,149,302,307,404,120B , IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act , PS Bhawarkol, district Ghazipur. 2. Preceding input facts generating ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-14-2010
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 28.03.2003 issued by the respondent no.2 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act, assessed to tax in the status of HUF and filed return for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring therein income of Rs. 1,80,570/-. The said return was subjected to scrutiny. The assessing authority had passed the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 26.10.1998. Thereafter, respondent no.2 issued a notice on 28.03.2003 under Section 148 of the Act with the view to re-open the proceedings and re-assess under Section 147 of the Act. In pursuance of the said notice, the return was filed on 24.04.2003. The assessing authority had supplied the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, which are as follows: "The assessee had filed a return...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-13-2010
1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Smt. Meena Devi for following reliefs: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo-warranto commanding and directing the respondent No.5 to vacate the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Vishambharpur, Parana Dehma, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur forthwith. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the charge of Gram Pradhan of Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Vishambharpur, Parana Dehma, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur to the petitioner by declaring her as elected Gram Pradhan and treat her duly elected. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to hold an inquiry and take appropriate action in regard to corruption and financial irregularities by respondent No.5. iv) Issue or pass any other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) Award cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-16-2010
1. The question in this case turns on, 'whether the persons shifted from the list of notified Scheduled Castes to the notified list of Scheduled Tribes, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 10/2003), under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, can be deprived of their constitutional rights under Article 243-D, of proportional representation in Panchayat elections, on the ground, that their numbers for giving them representation for reservation in the seats of Chairpersons of village panchayats is not available with the State Government, from the Census 2001 figures; and whether any other empirical data can be relied upon to fulfil the constitutional mandate.' 2. We have heard Shri L.P. Singh; Shri P.K. Kashyap and Shri Vivek Saran for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Y.S. Bohra and Dr. Y.S. Srivastava for the respondents. 3. 'Pradeshiya Jan Jati Vikas Manch' a social service organiz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-27-2010
1. Applicant is being prosecuted in complaint case no. 867 of 2010, under Section 18 (c), 27(b)(II) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in case ,State of U.P. v. Anand Kumar Porwal, pending before C.J.M., Auraiya, entire proceeding of which prosecution is sought to be quashed by the applicant through instant Criminal Misc. Application along with the summoning order dated 20.5.2010. 2. Sri Shukla, harangued two submissions in support of the prayers made here firstly, that while summoning the applicant C.J.M. has not passed an order, which may indicate that he had dispensed with inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore it is to be presumed that he has not done so and therefore prosecution of the applicant is bad in law being unsanctified by the Code albeit, learned counsel conceded to the proposition that since the complaint has been filed by a public servant, recording of complainant's statement, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was not legally imperative and there was no illegality i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-30-2010
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by a Registered Limited Company, known as M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi, against the three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, that is, by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi and the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, dated 2.9.1992, 24.1.1997 and 6.12.2006, respectively, by which the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation has been recorded in the revenue and consolidation records in respect of the agricultural land held by the petitioner No. 1-company. The interpretation of the Acquisition Notification involved in the present case is whether the land separate from the acquired Sugar Factory/Mill and its appurtenant land would be treated to be agricultural land or part of the Sugar Factory/Mill.2. The petitioner No. 2, Saran Vinod, claims himself to be the authorised signatory, a...
Tag this Judgment!