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 : AIR1961All280
V. Bhargava, J. 1. His Highness the Nawab of Rampur has filed these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the assessment of his income for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 under the Indian Income-tax Act, iN the petitions, various grounds were taken for challenging the validity of assessment to income-tax of the income of the petitioner, but the learned Advocate-General, who argued these petitions before us, confined himself to only three points, so that we need deal with those three points only.2. The first point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was the ruler of an independent State upto the 30th of June, 1949, and the State of Rampur was merged in the Indian Union by the Rampur Merger Agreement dated the 15th of May, 1949, whereunder a guarantee was granted that:'the Nawab shall continue to enjoy the same personal rights, privileges, immunities, dignities and titles which he would have enjoyed had this agreement no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC973
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra, senior advocate, duly assisted by Sri S.B. Pandey and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Mehrotra assisted by Sri Anupam Mehrotra for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 15.3.2007, passed on application Nos. C-27 and C-33 in an Election Petition No. 2 of 2006, by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow.3. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Umesh Chandra that in an election for the post of Mayor of Lucknow, the petitioner was declared elected by defeating respondent Nos. 3 to 18. The said election was challenged by the respondent No. 3 by preferring an election petition before the District Judge, Lucknow and the District Judge, Lucknow, after admitting issued notices to the respondents fixing 19.12.2006 and also transferred the said election petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2008)12VST390(All)
Prakash Krishna and Bharati Sapru, JJ.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed off by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties. A common question of law is involved in all these petitions with regard to the interpretation of words 'turnover of sales' occurring in notification nos. 1093 dated 27th of July, 1991: 780 dated 31st of March, 1995 and 640 dated 21st of February, 1997, all issued under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Legality and validity of the Circular No. 279 dated 6.2.2003 whereby the Commissioner of Trade Tax has clarified the import and scope of notification dated 21.2.1997 has been questioned in all these writ petitions, as also the initiation of reassessment proceedings in pursuance thereof barring the writ petition No. 288 of 2003: M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. In this writ petition the challenge is with regard to said circular alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1977(1)ELT1(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the question that arises for determination is as to the mode of valuation of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. For the purpose of determination of the value of its product, for levy of excise duty, the petitioner company submitted its price list to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shikohabad (hereinafter called the Superintendent) containing the prices at which it claimed to be selling its products to five companies (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies). He did not accept the price list, but directed the petitioner company to submit the price list in Form IV containing the prices at which five companies to which it sells its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sell those products. The petitioner company has challenged the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2253
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these writ petitions raise similar questions and have been heard together.2. By these writ petitions, the advertisement dated 1st February, 2005 issued by the Additional Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation advertising 1500 posts of conductor for being filled up has been challenged. In Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 counter and supplementary counter affidavits, rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, in some other writ petitions also counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 is being treated as leading writ petition and it is sufficient to refer the pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions.3. The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions are in two categories. The first category of petitioners are those petitioners who were imparted apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC230
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Since similar and common controversy is involved in these two writ petitions, both the writ petitions are being decided by this one and common judgment.2. Heard Sarvasri G.K. Singh and V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record.3. Under challenge in these two petitions is an order of dismissal passed on 31st July, 2004 dismissing the petitioners from service and the other subsequent orders passed on 30th May, 2005 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 28.12.2005 by which the petitioner's revision was dismissed.4. It emerges from the record that the petitioners, who were working as Constables in 35 Battalion in Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as the P.A.C.), were posted on security duty of Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya, Faizabad with other P.A.C. personnel. On 9th April, 2003, they were on the duty of the Watch Towers to keep a watch on the disputed premises. One S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC273
Palok Basu and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.1. The petitioners in each case were highest bidders in the auction which held on different dates relating to a forest produce known as resin, the disposal of which is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act. 1976. According to the facts emerging in all these petitions, the issue raised is whether the petitioners can be asked to pay the difference between the price which they had bid and not paid for resin and the subsequent sale price which was obtained by the Forest Department for the same produce, now being recovered as arrears of land revenue.2. When the writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court called for counter-affidavits and passed an interim order staying the recovery of the amount through the citations from the petitioners. In response to the notices Issued, the State of U. P. and its officials of the Forest Department have filed a counter-affidavit in some of t...
Tag this Judgment!