Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2010
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-23-2010
1. The question of law, that requires consideration in these two Special Appeals, is as to whether the 'Variable Dearness Allowance' (VDA) in the notification dated 31.1.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Minimum of Wages Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) is linked up with the basic rate of wages. 2. The Govind Bhawan Karyalaya with its registered office at 151 M.G. Road, Kolkata is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act engaged in religious and charitable works including publication of religious books. The Society carries on various activities including running a printing press at Gorakhpur known as 'Geeta Press'. The books printed and published are sold at nominal prices at various places in the country. The press is the major source of affordable religious books in the country. 3. The Society employs unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled staff. They are paid wages in accordance with the notifications issued from time to time by the State Government under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-23-2010
1. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan for the petitioners, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jamwant Maurya and Sri M.C. Gupta for respondent no. 4 and learned standing counsel representing the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners who are small businessmen/traders of Nagar Panchayat Raya, District Mathura have challenged the vires of bye-laws namely; "Nagar Panchayat Raya Ki Seemantargat Vanijya Niyantran Hetu License Niyamawali" dated 13.8.2001. 3. The Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the population of Nagar Panchayat Raya is not more than 30,000, the petitioners are carrying business in general merchandise, building materials, provisional stores, cloths etc. Citations dated 16.6.2010 have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-22-2010
1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 07.01.2006 (Annexure-2) passed by Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda rejecting the petitioner's appeal and order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by District Magistrate, Gonda by which the petitioner's application for grant of licence for 315 Bore Rifle has been rejected. 3. In brief the facts of the present case are that the petitioner has applied for a licence of N.P. Bore Rifle in the year 1999, thereafter the O.P. No. 3/District Magistrate, Gonda/Licencing Authority called the report from the concerned police authority in order to consider the matter regarding grant of arm licence. 4. On 22.02.2005, Superintendent of Police, Gonda submitted a report against the petitioner stating therein that a criminal case No. 154 of 2000 under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-16-2010
1. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rules 12A(5), 12B(4), 12C(3) and 25B(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules (called the 'Rules' for short) as amended by the U.P. Trade Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2001and further seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus reading down the aforesaid Rules insofar as it provides that the forms issued in particular financial year shall be valid for the transactions of purchase and sale made during two financial years immediately preceding to that year, as not applicable to the transactions of sale or purchase which are not disputed by the Department. 2. All the aforesaid amended Rules provide that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer in a financial year shall be valid for the transactions of purchase or sale made during that financial year as also made during two financial years immediately preceding the financial year. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid amended Rules as the forms furnished by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-16-2010
1. The dispute between the promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been the unending process since decades. Either side being the member of same fraternity, has been approaching for judicial review of the action of the High Court on one or the other ground but it appears that for one or the other reasons may be, for some fault on the part of the High Court to adjudicate the controversy, justice has not been done. In pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the dispute within six months, the present Division Bench has been constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court to settle the law on the question involved in the writ petition. 2. It is the irony of fate that those, who impart justice to citizens or litigants, are not satisfied for one or the other reason resulting in multiplicity of litigation with regard to seniority and consequential benefits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service (in shor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-09-2010
1. Heard Sri K.S.Rastogi for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla (respondent No.2), who is appearing in person and Ms. Savita Jain appearing for rest of the private respondents. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage.2. Basically, the orders impugned in the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings, this Court would have declined to exercise its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but considering submission that the impugned revisional order is wholly without jurisdiction, which is a well established exception in such matter, as referred above, I am inclined to proceed further decide the matter accordingly.3. The short question up for consideration is whether after amendment made in 1997, second revision would lie or not.4. The petitioner initiated mutation proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-02-2010
1. Heard Shri S.K.Kalia learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri D.K.Upadhayay learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Controversy in question seems to be an instance where for one or other reason State Government had deprived the petitioner to discharge duty as Director Ayurved, though she was selected and appointed in accordance to rules. Government for the reasons best known to it seems not interested to assign the duty to the petitioner for the post of Director Ayurved rather it wants to place a person of its choice as the head of the Department. 3. The petitioner was promoted to officiate on the post of Director Ayurved by order dated 23.9.2005 contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. It appears that certain adverse entries were given to the petitioner de hors the Rules, which according to Shri S.K.Kalia learned Senior Advocate, was done in order to create obstacle in petitioner' career. In consequenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-02-2010
1. Special Appeal No.1736 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Azamgarh Muslim Education Society through its Secretary, Wasiuddin as also the Committee of Management, Shibli National Post Graduate College, Azamgarh through its Secretary, Wasiuddin and twenty other persons challenging the order dated 27th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the writ petition preferred by the appellants herein has been disposed of with the certain directions. 2. Special Appeal Defective No.954 of 2010 has been filed by Sri Wasiuddin, Joint Secretary/Officiating Secretary, the Azamgarh Muslim Education Society, Azamgarh and Sri Abu Saleh Ansari challenging the order dated 27th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the writ petition preferred by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 arrayed in the appeal has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by applying the reasons and directions issued in Writ Petition No.47139 of 2010, Committee of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-26-2010
1. A Division Bench of this Court noticed a conflict of opinion in the judgments of the Court delivered in Ram Lal vs. State of U.P., 2000 (41) ACC, 1715 and in Idrish vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2002 (44) ACC 1117 and has referred the following questions to be considered by a Larger Bench:- "(1)Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority acting under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is required to communicate to the person detained, regarding right of making representation to him in view of Apex Court's decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra)? If so, non communication would infringe fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution? (2)If the answer of question no.1 is in the affirmative, whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) to communicate the detenu's right within which the detenu is required to make representation to him i.e. before approval of the d...
Tag this Judgment!