Court : Allahabad
1. This Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 27.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 18.5.2010 and 9.8.2010 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad in criminal case no.257 of 2009, State (C.B.I.) Versus Moti Lal Goel & others under sections 120-B, 420 read with 511, 466, 471 IPC arising out of crime no.84 of 2005, Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, subsequently registered by C.B.I., S.P.E., Dehradun as F.I.R. No. RC 0072006A 0015 year 2006 dated 28.7.2008. 2. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The investigation of the case was transferred to C.B.I. in pursuance of order dated 28.7.2008 passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.1552 of 2005, Rajender Tyagi Versus State of U.P. & others.3. By order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Magistrate, an application, moved on behalf of the applicant and another co-accused for supplying the copies of certain documents as well as the copy of the case diary of investigation done...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.2. This is tenant writ petition. He seeks quashing of the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut dated 2 nd February, 2006 in Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 and that passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut dated 1 st March, 2011, in S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2006.3. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:4. The land-lord, late Mahendra Singh Gupta instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the allegation that the premises in question is not covered by the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the tenancy had been validly terminated under notice dated 31 st August, 1996. After the parties exchanged their pleadings, the Judge, Small Causes framed following four issues for determination:(a) Whether the provision of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28 th. June, 2006 (Annexure 13 to writ petition), order dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure 7 to writ petition) and order dated 25.9.1983 (Annexure 4 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to dispossess petitioners from land in dispute.2. Present writ petition is arises out of a proceeding under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960. In the year 1974, proceedings were initiated against one Narendra Lal and Rajendra Lal and two ceiling cases were registered as Case Nos. 212 of 1974 and 214 of 1974. Both the cases were consolidated and decided by prescribed authority on 25.2.1975 declaring certain land as surplus. Two separate appeals were filed as Appeal Nos.377 and 378 of 1975 and State of U.P. has also filed two separate appeal Nos. 441 and 442 of 1975. By order dated 22 nd January, 1976, judgement was passed in all four appeals dismissing the appeals filed by Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Plaintiff-respondent M/s Khaybar Transport Pvt. Ltd. is a company. It was granted a licence to run a dispensing pump under an agreement dated 15 th December, 2005 by the defendant-revisionist Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said agreement was terminated on 29.5.08. The order of termination of the licence was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent by filing a Writ Petition No.2701 of 2008. The writ petition was dismissed on 3.6.08 on the ground of alternative remedy observing that the plaintiff-respondent has an effective alternate remedy of filing a civil suit before the civil court concerned. On the basis of the observation made in the above order, plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No.1984 of 2008 claiming two reliefs. First, for the issuance of decree of declaration declaring the cancellation of the licence to be illegal, arbitrary, void, and ineffective. Secondly, to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-revisionist to restore the supply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri R.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Jain , learned counsel for the the respondents.2. Controversy in the present case relates to House no. Q 690 Mohalla Kanoon Goyan, district Barabanki under the tenancy of petitioner in regard to which Sri B.N. Verma/opposite party no.3/landlord moved a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') on the ground that he has to retire from service on 31.7.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement he has to vacate the building which has been provided to him in official capacity.3. Thereafter he want to live in the premises in question as he has no other premises in his possession.4. In para-10 of the release application it has been stated that the family of the applicant consist of his wife two daughters and one son and other are co-owners/ landlords of the premises in question had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2003 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The only dispute involved in the present revisions are whether the Mafron Gas is liable to tax under the entry of All kinds of Chemicals @ 10% or liable to tax as a refrigeration material at the higher rate of tax.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Ahemdabad (Gujarat). The manufacturing unit is also at Surat (Gujarat) and its head office at Bombay. The applicant has a branch office at Ghaziabad there from the applicant sells its products within the State of U.P. The chemical name of Mafron Gas is Fluorochloro hydrocarbon gas. In the market, it is marketed as Mafron Gas. It is mainly used in refrigerator, air-conditioner, etc. for the purpose of refrigeration, namely, to give cooling effect. It is a material used in the refrigeration. The claim of the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and thelearned A.G.A.2. This petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR dated 23.3.2011 registeredat case crime No. 106 of 2011, under Section 306/34 I.P.C., P.S. GurgaonSadar, district Gurgaon and the consequential proceedings thereto.3. The FIR lodged by Sri Shahrukh Khan son of the deceased Iqbal Asif Khanalleges that the deceased was working as Taxation Manager in XeroxCompany. On 23.3.2011 at 3.30 PM, the deceased had telephoned theinformant and told him that he was very disturbed by his officials. Then theinformant himself tried to contact his father but his phone was not picked up.4. Thereafter, he went to Gurgaon along with his maternal uncle (Mama.)In themeantime there was a phone call to the mobile of his 'Mama' from the mobileof his father that a corpse was lying in an under-construction building nearSouthend Opal in Gurgaon. The FIR named five persons including the fourpetitioners as having troubled his f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that one Anand Kumar Pandey, aged about 20 years, an agriculturist as well as student, was travelling in Train No.3010 Dn Dehradun-Howrah express on 29.5.1999 after purchasing the second class ticket from Lucknow in order to reach Shahganj. When the train reached near railway station Rudauli, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which, he died at the spot. The mother of the deceased approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (in short 'Act').3. Written statement was filed by the Railway with the plea that it is not a case of accidental fall. The plea was also taken by the Railway that the deceased jumped from the moving train and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal framed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Factual matrix of present case as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are that they are working in U.P. Jal Nigam, for redressal of their grievances applicant No. 1 (Sri Prabhat Chandra Jain) had filed a Writ Petition No. 864 (SB) of 2004, disposed of by order dated 19.07.2006 after placing reliance on the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harvindra Singh v. Chief Engineer, Karmik and Ors, 2005 AIR SCW 5995, the relevant portion is as under:- "We, therefore, direct that the petitioner, for the reasons given in the judgment, shall be treated to have continued in service till the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner has already retired, after attaining the age of 60 years, he shall be paid his post retiral dues treating him to have retired on completing the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits." 3. Further the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed a Writ Petition No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. We have heard Shri Shahroze Khan for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.2. Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57791 of 2008; Dr. Dinesh Chand Pandey, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57795 of 2008 are Bachelors of Homeopathic, Medicine and Surgery and are registered with the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. Lucknow vide Registration No.25477 dated 26th April, 2002 and Registration No.24249 dated 28th May, 1997 respectively. They are practicing homeopathy in Distt. Siddharth Nagar. Dr. Faizan Ahmad, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.57794 of 2008, is Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery from Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi and is registered with Indian Medicine Board, U.P. vide Registration No.9016 dated 14.6.2001. He is practicing Unani Medicine at Siddharth Nagar.3. All the petitioners had applied for and were registered by Chief Medical Officer/ Competent Authority for running ultra sound clinic under Rule 6 (2), 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!