Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002CriLJ272
ORDER1. The National Security Act, 1980 was enacted considering the prevailing situation of communal disharmony, social tensions, extremist activities, industrial unrest and increasing tendency on the part of various Interest parties to engineer agitation on different, issues, it was considered necessary that the law and order situation in the country is tackled in a most determined and effective way. The anti social and anti-national elements including sessionist communal and pro-caste elements and also other elements who adversely influence and affect the services essential to the community pose of a grave challenge to the lawful authority and sometimes even hold the society to ransom.2. Considering the complexity and nature of the problems, particularly in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community, it was felt that the administration would be greatly handicapped in dealing effectively with the same, in the absence of powers of peventive deten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]58SCL370(All)
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present company application has been filed under Section 391(1) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by M/s. Bharat Explosives Limited, a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 9 K.M. Lalitpur Jhansi Road, Lalitpur-284403 (UP) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferee Company').2. It is, inter alia, prayed that the convening of meeting of the secured creditors of the Transferee Company meeting of the shareholders/members of the Transferee Company and the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the Transferee Company be dispensed with.3. It appears that a Scheme of Amalgamation is proposed for the amalgamation of M/s. Bulk Explosive Limited, having its Registered Office at House No. 45, Gali No. 2, Ambedkar Vihar, near Harijan Basti, Sector 37, NOIDA (U.P.) hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferor Company' with the Transferee Company. Copy of the proposed Scheme of Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2619
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the impugned detention order dated 6-12-2007 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition)' passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (Respondent No. 2), detaining petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the N.S. Act'), and further, for directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents.3. From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition as also in the Counter Affidavits, the facts as stated here-in-after, emerge.4. It appears that a First Information Report was lodged by one Raj an Kumar Jaiswal on 22-9-2007 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 21-9-2007. The said First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No. 1624 of 2007, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All123
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:--(a) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and/setting aside the notice dated 4-11-1992 issued by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). (b) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the letter dated 9-11-1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition. (c)to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to create Pari-Passu charge in favour of the other Financial Institutions vis-a-vis the petitioner. (d) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to disburse the balance amount of loan to the petitioner in terms of the agreements. (e) to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their officers and agents from taking any action pursuan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All94
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Kedar Nath and Lachhman Das against their conviction by Dr. L.D. Joshi, Special Judge, Meerut, under Sections 3 and 4(b), Explosive Substances Act, 6 of 1908. The learned Judge sentenced each of the appellants to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under the former and, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under the latter section. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On the promulgation of Ordinance 19 of 1943 numerous appeals against the decisions of Special Judges and Special Magistrates were filed in this Court and, as in most of the appeals the validity of the Ordinance was assailed, the hearing of the appeals was deferred till the decision of the question by a Pull Bench A Pall Bench of this Court recently held that the Ordinance was valid. The consideration of the present appeal must, therefore, be approached on the assumption that the trial of the appellants, which culminated in the sentences passed by the Special Judge, had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All982; 153Ind.Cas.147
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Nathu Ram who has been convicted under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908), by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Etawah and sentenced to four years' and six months' R.I. Mr. K.N. Agarwala appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the entire record. Before I deal with the question of fact as to whether the evidence on the record justifies the conviction of the appellant, I should dispose of certain questions of law advanced by learned Counsel. It is said that because of Section 7, Explosive Substances Act, the learned Magistrate who committed the accused to the Court of Session should not have taken cognizance of the case without the consent of the Local Government. That provision of law runs as follows:No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Local Government or the Governor-General in Council.2. It is conceded that no such consent was obtained while the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)IILLJ159All
Yashodanandan, J.1. The Indian Explosives Limited is a public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business or manufacture and sale of explosives and fertilisers. The petitioner before us is its Fertilizer Division having its factory at Panki, Kanpur. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash and or set aside the Reference Order made by respondent No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 6th September, 1977, and the order of respondent No 2, the Industrial Tribunal III, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, dated 18th December, 1978 disposing of certain issues framed as a consequence of the written statement filed by the petitioner raising certain preliminary objections.2. The material facts on the basis of which this petition is based are that disciplinary proceedings were commenced by the petitioner against 16 of its workmen, 11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WE have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, and Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred against the impugned award dated 31.1.2004 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 135 of 1999 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kheri. 2. DECEASED Kashmir Singh was a truck driver bearing no. UP 65- H/0691. On 3.6.1999 he was coming from Madhya Pradesh after loading iron. When he reached near town Kablapur, stopped the truck and came down from the truck and was checking the tyre after parking on roadside. An unknown vehicle came in a rash and negligent way and collided with deceased Kashmir Singh, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot on 13.6.1999 at 3.45 pm near Kablapur. An FIR was lodged and dependent of the deceased approach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All518; 1959CriLJ1134
A.N. Mulla, J.1. Appellant Ram Singh has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, and sentenced to death. Five other accused persons, namely Kirpa Shanker alias Lala Misra, Krishna Kumar alias Chhuttan, Mahesh Prasad, Lallu and Brahma Kishore alias Phunnar, were also prosecuted in this case but they were acquitted. The charge against the appellant and the other accused persons was that they committed a riot with deadly weapons, such as pistols and guns, on the night between the 14th and 15th July, 1956, near the culvert of village Bighapur and in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly they committed the murder of Shankeri Brahmin by shooting him dead. The learned Judge has made the usual reference for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant.1A. The prosecution story is that Shankeri deceased resided in village Ghatampur, Police Station Bara Sagwar, district Unnao, and ostensibly he carried on the profe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2167
D.K. Seth, J.1. Original Suit No. 548, of 1987, was filed by one Rama Ram Sonkar against one Mahendra Kumar and another, claiming a relief in respect of the accounting of the business from 1984 till the date of the suit and to pay profit payable to the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 2, shall not be permitted to stay with his family inside the godown.2. In the suit, an application for appointment of receiver was filed by the plaintiff. By an order dated 28.5.1990, one Sri Sachidanand Singh was appointed as receiver. By an order dated 1.9.1990, the appointment of the said Sri Sachidanand Singh was recalled. Shri B.K. Varma. Assistant Manager, LPG, Indian Oil Corporation. Ghazipur, was appointed as receiver for ensuring distribution of Gas Cylinder in connection with the business of the plaintiff. On 7.9.1990, an application was filed by the said Shri B.K. Varma, Assistant Manager. LPG, Indian Oil Corporation, Ghazipur, praying that he should not be appointed as receiver. Despite su...
Tag this Judgment!