Court : Allahabad
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
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC2011
A.K. Yog, J.1. In the writ-petition before us, we are called upon, to deal with an issue which is both disturbing as well as vital to the 'Administration of Justice'.2. Petitioners are 'regular legal practioners' in High Court, Allahabad. One of them, Ms. Sadhna Upadhyaya, is the former Secretary of HCBA (HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD), which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as amended in the State of U.P.). They are undisputedly members of Allahabad High Court 'BAR'. These 'Advocates'-on their behalf and on behalf of other 'Advocates', ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad are aggrieved and complain of being asprived of their 'rights' and 'privileges' by none else but 'Advocates'-who are not ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad and/or not in legal profession at all, for convenience-collectively referred to as 'NRA' (Non Resident Advocates). They have approached this Court aspiring for protection and expect the Court to save them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2007All39; 2007(1)AWC329; [2007(2)JCR340(All)]
Prakash Krishna , J.1. Bungalow known as 'White House' being House No. 15/71, Civil Lines Kanpur standing on plot Nos. 104, 104-A 104-B, total area of about 14972 sq. yards was sought to be purchased by the present applicant, namely, Sri Ramesh Chandra Srivastava (now dead) and represented by his heirs and legal representatives from its owner namely Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (L.D.T.A.), duly incorporated under the Companies Act, for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On 5th May, 1960 the applicant and LDTA entered into registered agreement to purchase the aforesaid premises by means of a registered agreement to purchase. Applicant paid Rs. 5000/- as earnest money for the aforesaid bungalow standing on lease hold property and there was a condition in the lease deed prohibiting alienation except with the sanction of the District Magistrate, and, therefore, an application for permission to sell the lease hold rights in favour of the applicant was moved. Requisite permission was granted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(227)ELT61(All)
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. A mother and son have challenged by the abovenoted two applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the mail taxability of complaint filed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Noida against them in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. They are being heard together and Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinay Saran, advocate, Sri A.K. Nigam, Addl. Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri S.S. Tiwari and S.K. Mishra, advocates for Central Excise and Sri Pravendra Kumar, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State have been heard.2. M/s Shahnaz Ayurvedic is manufacturing Ayurvedic Medicines under a drug licence for their two Units situated at Okhla New Delhi and Noida. In the year 1986, M/s Shahnaz Ayurvedic had declared before the Central Excise Department that it was manufacturing Ayurvedic Medicines and no excise duty was leviable thereon, but the Excise Department had issued a show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)26VST601(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner M/s S.K. Traders through its proprietress Smt. Kavita Maheshwari, seeks the following relief:(i) to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notices dated 4.3.2002 (Annexure 4 to the petition) issued by respondent No. 2.(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure 3 to the petition) passed by respondent No. 1.(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings under Section 21(2) for the assessment year 1994-95.(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.(v) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.FACTS OF THE CASE:2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the relief and challenges are inter-connected. We may first set out and deal with the facts and issues of Writ Petition No.9416 (M/B) of 2010. The petitioner has moved this Court complaining of violation of Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in exercise of powers under sub-section 1 and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Act) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Rules), which was issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27 th January, 1994. The allegation is that the State of U.P. and its authorities have failed to carry out the directions as contained in the notification.2. It is the petitioners grievance that the authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate and Sri B.C. Rai, Advocate, have argued on behalf of petitioners. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate, have appeared and argued the matter on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 adopted the arguments of Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate and did not add anything. 2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to decide under the Rules of the Court at this stage. 3. This writ petition involves certain intricate technical aspects relating to electricity supply, apparatus, particularly energy measuring digital meters, computerized data and print outs. On the request of Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, two officials of respondent no. 3 were permitted to explain these technical aspects. They are, (1) Sri K.K. Singhal, Superintending Engineer, Circle Amroha; and (2) Sri Krishan Pal, Executive Engineer (Te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Heera Lal Srivastava, Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sri Amit Srivastava, Sri Jai Narain Pandey , Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Sri S.A. Jamal , Sri O.P. Tewari , Sri Ajai Kumar Singh , Sri Jai Prakash Singh , Sri K.K. Seth, Sri Arvind Misra, Sri H.G.S. Parihar , Sri Sreesh Chandra Misra , Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Rai , Sri S.P. Dwivedi , Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, Sri Durgesh Vijay Srivastava, Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad, Sri S.K. Misra , Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, Sri Anil Kumar Misra, Sri Sanjeet Singh , Sri Ram Nayak Tripathi , Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey , Sri Maheep Kumar Singh , Sri O.N. Pandey , Sri K.K. Singh Somvanshi , Sri Sarvesh Kumar Misra , Sri Vineet Kumar Pandey , Sri D.P. Singh Somvanshi , Sri A. K. Pandey , Sri K.K. Verma , Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh , Sri V.S. Trivedi , Sri J.N. Misra and Sri Amit Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners in connected writ petitions and Sri Vinay Bhushan , learned counsel for National Council of Teachers Eduction...
Tag this Judgment!