Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(3)ARC2241
yatindra singh, j.1. these cases revolve around constitutionality, interpretation, and applicability of the explanation to section 17(iii) of the uttar pradesh krishi utpadan mandi adhiniyam, 1964 (the act) and rule 50-a of the uttar pradesh krishi utpadan mandi niyamavali, 1965 (the rules). these are quoted in appendix-1 to this judgment.the facts2. itc limited (itc) is a company registered under the companies act. its registered office is at 37, jl nehru road, kolkata (west bengal). it initially started business with making cigarettes but at present has diversified itself into many other businesses. however, here, we are concerned with its business relating to cigarettes only.3. in order to make cigarettes, raw tobacco is first converted into cut tobacco thereafter cigarettes are made from the cut tobacco. according to itc.. the raw tobacco is purchased in public auction from auction platform maintained by tobacco beard of india in the state of andhra pradesh and karnatka.. it has two thrashing units: one at anaparti (andhra pradesh) and the other at chirala (andhra pradesh).. the raw tobacco is brought to the thrashing units and converted into cubical form. this is sent to its other units for converting it into cut tobacco.. it has four manufacturing units of cigarettes: they are situate at saharanpur (up), munger (bihar), banglore (karnataka) and kidderpore (west bengal). however, the facility for making cut tobacco is only in the first three.. thrashed tobacco is first .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1989All154; [1989(59)FLR272]
u.c srivastava, j. 1. these connected writ petitions came up for consideration before a division bench of this court of which two of us were members. at the time of hearing of these writ petitions, from the record which was produced, it was found that on the ground of issuing forged gate-passes passed by the petitioners, a first information report was lodged on 19th december, 1979 by the secretary, mandi samiti, jaffarganj, sultanpur, and the petitioners, who were employees of the mandi samiti, sultanpur, were arrested and after three days were released on bail ultimately the police submitted final report in the case. the petitioners were attached to mandi samiti, but salary was not paid to them although they applied for it. the secretary, mandi samiti referred the matter to the director of the mandi samiti and the director vide letter dated 27th november, 1979 directed the mandi samiti to terminate the services of such employees including the petitioners in term of clause ii of the appointment. order by paying one month's salary in lieu of notice. it was also mentioned in the said letter dated 27th november, 1979 which is on record, that no reference of said letter be made in the termination order. on 6th and 7th march, 1980 the mandi samities were dissolved including the mandi samiti of jafarganj and the petitioners' services were terminated on 10th march, 1980 and it was provided in the order that in lieu of one month's notice, one month's salary will be paid to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)3UPLBEC2318
r.b. misra, j.1. the present writ petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 18.3.1999 passed by the additional director (administration) of rajya krishi utpadan mandi parishad,, (inshort called 'mandi parishad'), u.p. lucknow (annexure-18 to the writ petition) and the order dated 10.3.1999 passed by the director, 'mandi parishad', as referred in the order dated 18.9.1999. the petitioner has inter alia prayed for other relief including for quashing the unreasonable terms and conditions incorporated in the letter dated 5.7.1995 of the managing director, sugar corporation (annexure-10 to the writ petition) so much so saying that the service of the petitioner had automatically come to an end after expiry of period of one year from the date of joining at 'mandi parishad'.2. heard sri v.b., upadhaya, learned senior counsel along with sri vidya bhushan upadhaya, for the petitioner and sri v.k. birla, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5 and sri satish mandhyan, learned counsel for 'mandi parishad'.3. the facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the petitioner applied to the post of junior engineer (civil) in respondent u.p. state sugar corporation limited (hereinafter called 'sugar corporation') being fully eligible to the said post, was invited by managing director of 'corporation' by its letter 17.4.1985 (annexure-1) for interview to be held on 3.5.1985, and was duly selected and appointed to the post of junior engineer (civil). the select .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2879
s. rafat alam and sudhir agarwal, jj.1. this special appeal under the rules of this court arises out of order dated 14.2.2006 of the learned single judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging order dated 12.1.2006 transferring petitioner-appellant from mandi samit, bareilly to mandi samiti, bahedi i.e. within the same district.2. sri mahesh gautam, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that under regulation 24(2) of uttar pradesh agricultural produce market committees (centralized) service regulations 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 1984 regulation), group 'd' employee of the mandi samiti cannot be transferred even within the district or region, if there does not exist any special circumstance. it is contended that in the absence of any special circumstance, the deputy director (administration) has no authority or jurisdiction to transfer any group 'd' employee. it is also submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition transferring the appellant does not disclose the existence of special circumstance and this aspect has not been correctly appreciated by the learned single judge.3. sri b.d. mandhyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by sri satish mandhyan submitted that the transfer of the appellant is strictly in accordance with regulation 24(2) of 1984 regulation. he further stated that mandi samit, bareilly has a large quantum of transactions on account of its bigger size and deficiency in collection of mandi fee caused serious .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2006All200
amitava lala, j.1. writ petitioner filed this petition basically challenging a press note dated 31st august, 1998 and the notification being numbered so 808 (e) dated 11th september, 1998, which are as follows:press note'subject: de-licensing of sugar industry.the government has further viewed the list of industries under compulsory licensing, and has decided to delete sugar industry from the list of industries requiring compulsory licensing under provisions of the industrial (development and regulation) act, 1951. however, in order to avoid unhealthy competition among sugar factories to procure sugarcane, a minimum of 15 km would continue to be observed between an existing sugar mill and a new mill by exercise of power under sugarcane (control) order, 1966.2. the entrepreneurs who wish to avail themselves of the de-licensing of sugar industry would be required to file an industrial entrepreneurs memoranda (iem) with the secretariat of industrial assistance in the ministry of industry as laid down for all de-licensing industries in terms of the press note dated 2nd august, 1991, as amended from time to time.3. entrepreneurs who have been issued letter(s) of intent (loi) for manufacture of sugar need not file an initial iem. in such cases, the loi holder shall only file part b of the loi at the time of commencement of commercial production against the loi issued by them. it is, however, open to entrepreneurs to file an initial iem (in lieu of the loi/industrial licence held by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1732
r.h. zaidi and r.p. nigam, jj.1. by means of this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.1.1989 passed by director, mandi parishad, removing the petitioner from the post of senior agriculture marketing inspector.2. relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 14.3.1962 in subordinate agriculture service grade-ii, agriculture department, u.p. by director of agriculture. said post was within the purview of u. p. public service commission. the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the service commission. the petitioner was, thereafter, confirmed on the aforesaid post on 14.4.1996. it was on 30.7.1980 that he was sent on deputation to mandi parishad as secretary. mandi samiti, where he was promoted to the post of senior marketing inspector in subordinate agriculture service grade-i vide order dated 15.11.1980 with effect from 11.9.1980 by respondent no. 1. services of the petitioner were merged in the services of mandi samiti on 25.11.1985. it was on 4.2.1986 as regarding the charges of committing gross irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, the petitioner was suspended by the respondent no. 1. thereafter, it appears that preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which nothing material came to light against the petitioner. the petitioner was, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3475
a. k. yog, j.1. krishi utpadan mandi samiti. khurja (petitioner) is the tenant of ground floor accommodation of building no. 372, qasba khurja [district bulandshahr) (for short called accommodation in question) at the rate of rs. 450 per month. the accommodation in question, admittedly, belongs to smt. prabha sharma (respondent no. 2), who is the landlady of the said tenant petitioner of the accommodation in question.2. smt. prabha sharma(respondent no. 3) filed an application under section 21 (8), u. p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act. 1972 (u. p. act no. xiii of 1972) (for short called 'the act') praying for enhancement of rent as contemplated under the act.3. the landlady claims that rent may be fixed by treating valuation of the accommodation in question at rs. 17,48,000 (i.e. rs. 1,74,800, annual rent for a year). landlady filed report of a chartered engineer, who fixed the valuation of the building in question was rs. 12,23,700.4. the tenant/petitioner contested application for enhancement of rent and filed objections.5. both the landlady(respondent no. 3) and the tenant (petitioner) led evidence and the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 16th january 1998 (incorrectly typed as 16th january 1997 (annexure-6 to the writ petition) (particular page 38 of the writ paper book) held, after discussing evidence and documents on record that valuation of the accommodation in question as indicated by the deputy director (construction) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)188CTR(All)556; [2004]267ITR461(All); (2004)2UPLBEC1833
m. katju, j.1. these two writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being disposed of by a common judgment.2. the petitioner is the krishi utpadan mandi samiti, bulandshahr, which has been constituted under the up krishi utpadan mandi adhiniyam, 1964. the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dt. 4th march, 2004 and 15th oct., 2003 requiring it to furnish income-tax returns for the asst. yr. 2003-04 and also to show-cause why penalty be not imposed for not furnishing the returns in time.3. the short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a local authority and is hence exempt from income-tax under s. 10(20) of the it act.4. sri b.d. mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that earlier for the asst. yr. 1978-79 an assessment order was passed against the petitioner by the ito, a ward, bulandshahr, on 25th may, 1982 against which an appeal was filed before the cit(a), meerut, who by order dt. 6th sept., 1982allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner is a local authority and hence exempt from income-tax. true copy of the order dt. 6th sept., 1982 is annex. 3 to the writ petition.5. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the definition of 'local authority' in section 3(31) of the general clauses act, and the definitions in some other acts.6. in our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. it may be mentioned that although earlier the expression 'local authority' was not defined .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2770
s.n. srivastava, j.1. this writ pennon is directed against the order dated 23.9.2005 passed by deputy director of consolidation, siddharth nagar, allowing revision and making certain amendment in chak of the petitioner and contesting opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the proceeding of allotment of chak.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.3. from perusal of the record, it transpires that opposite party no. 4 filed a time barred appeal against an order dated 25.8.2003 passed by consolidation officer, which was allowed and chak of opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 4 was altered, against which opposite party no. 2 preferred a revision which was allowed and petitioner's chak was disturbed. it is important to note from the record that petitioner's chak was not disturbed upto settlement officer of consolidation stage. opposite party no. 2 preferred revision against an order dated 5.2.2004 passed by settlement officer of consolidation 'i hough, petitioner's chak was not disturbed up to that stage, but while allowing revision, petitioner's chak was disturbed by the order of deputy director of consolidation and his original plot no. 259 (sic) 430 air was excluded from his chak and a totally udan chak on plot no. 51 etc. was given to him. learned counsel for parties raised several argument as to illegality of the order and also that the order is non-speaking order.4. on consideration of the entire materials on record and impugned orders of deputy director of consolidation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All164
kendall, j.1. this is an application for the revision of an order and decree of the judge of the small cause court, jaunpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. the plaintiff's suit was based on a promissory note for rs. 300. the contesting defendants, although they admitted that they had signed the promissory note and receipt, claimed that they had affixed their signature to a blank paper and that there was no consideration in cash. they alleged that they had induced the plaintiff to give evidence for them in a mutation case by affixing their signature to the promissory note and receipt. on these pleadings the judge framed an issue in the following form;did the defendants execute the promissory note in suit for consideration?'2. the burden of proof was in fact thrown on the plaintiff and he produced himself and two witnesses, viz., the witness to the promissory note and receipt and a mukhtar, to prove that the note had been duly executed for a cash consideration. defendant 1 produced himself and one witness who alleged that he was present when the note was executed and that there was no consideration. it is argued in revision that this decision was contrary to law.3. in the case of muhammad bakar v. bahal singh [1891] 13 all. 277 a pull bench of this court defined the limitations of section 25, provincial small causes courts act, 1887. they held that the high court should not interfere under that section,unless it clearly appeared to us that some substantial injustice to a .....
Tag this Judgment!