Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-09-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC769
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by him against tenant/respondent No. 2 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P.R.C. Act in short). Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 1993 before Prescribed Authority'/Munsif (West), Ballia. The property in dispute is a shop. Along with release application map of the property in dispute and adjoining properties belonging to the landlord was annexed. In the release application it was stated that previously landlord was carrying on medical practice in two shops shown by letters A and C in the map, that landlord had to accommodate his son who had passed graduation and was unemployed hence one of the shops in his occupation shown by letters C was given by him to his son in which he installed photostat machine for business purpose. It was pleaded that due to reduction in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-06-2004
Reported in : [2005]58SCL370(All)
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present company application has been filed under Section 391(1) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by M/s. Bharat Explosives Limited, a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 9 K.M. Lalitpur Jhansi Road, Lalitpur-284403 (UP) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferee Company').2. It is, inter alia, prayed that the convening of meeting of the secured creditors of the Transferee Company meeting of the shareholders/members of the Transferee Company and the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the Transferee Company be dispensed with.3. It appears that a Scheme of Amalgamation is proposed for the amalgamation of M/s. Bulk Explosive Limited, having its Registered Office at House No. 45, Gali No. 2, Ambedkar Vihar, near Harijan Basti, Sector 37, NOIDA (U.P.) hereinafter referred to as 'the Transferor Company' with the Transferee Company. Copy of the proposed Scheme of Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-06-2004
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(All)79; [2004]266ITR597(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions are husband and wife and are both doctors. Dr. Mrs. Anita Sahai is a gynaecologist running a maternity centre by the name of Manavi Women Clinic and Maternity Centre at B-237, Sector 19, Noida, Dr. Shard B. Sahai, her husband, is a qualified radiologist and is running a diagnostic centre in the name and style of Transmed Diagnostics at A-759, Sector 19, Noida, which is also the residence of both the petitioners.3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the warrant of authorisation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of block assessment proceedings, by issue of notice under Section 158BC of the Act by respondent No. 5, and continuation thereof by respondent No. 6 by issue of notice dated October 26, 2002, under Section 142(1) of the Act.4. The facts of the case are that on March 19, 2002, at about 8.00 a.m. the respondents authorities their of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-19-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2414
Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11th September, 2003 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in its contempt jurisdiction.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is a complete code, no appeal could be held to be maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules.3. Before we take up this question for consideration, it would be fit and proper that we must decide whether a contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act is maintainable in law. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act shall not lie against an order passed in a proceeding for contempt except against any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-19-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3939
Amar Saran, J.1. By our order dated 24-2-2004, we have allowed the appeal and passed the following orders :'Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA and perused the record.Appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 18-11-1981, passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1979, is hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.Detailed reasons for acquittal of the accused will be given later.'2. We now proceed to give our reasons for the said order.3. This appeal was preferred from the judgment dated 18-11-1981 passed by Sri C. P. Singh, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1979, State v. Om Prakash. By this judgment the learned trial Court had convicted the appellants Om Prakash, Ram Prakash and Smt. Premwati to imprisonment for life under Section 302/ 34, I. P. C. As Govind Ram the fourth accused had died during the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-28-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-12-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2739
S.U. Khan, J.1. In this writ petition arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard on 23.2.2004 and judgment was reserved. The Court did not have the advantage of hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents, as he did not appear even though the case was taken up in the revised list.2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit filed by landlord-respondent for his ejectment on the ground of default being S.C.C. Suit No. 588 of 1978 on the file of J.S.C.C., Bareilly. Suit was decreed on 23.2.1980, Tenant's revision (S.C.C. Revision No. 75 of 1980) was dismissed by Vth A.D.J., Bareilly on 1.5.1982, hence this writ petition. According to the plaint allegations rate of rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 19.50 till 15.7.19.72 and w.e.f. 15.7.1972 it was enhanced by 25% amounting to Rs. 24.39 per month. Provision of enhancement of rent on the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is provided for under Section 5 of the said Act. Under the said sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-12-2004
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC1377
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, with Sri Anant Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is decided at this stage in view of Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the result to the post of 'Bandi Rakshak' and issuance for writ of certiorari in quashing the order dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Principal Secretary, State Government and consequential order dated 22.7.2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the advertisement was published for recruitment to the post of 218 'Bandi Rakshak' under the Director General, Karagar Evam Prashasan Sudhar Sevayen, U.P., Lucknow in different range...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-03-2004
Reported in : (2005)1UPLBEC331
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since these Bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law and facts, I proceed to decide these writ petitions by passing a present common judgment. The controversy under the present Bunch of writ petitions relates to transfer of petitioner employees by the impugned order to State of Uttaranchal in pursuance to provision contained in U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred as Act). The Act was promulgated by Parliament on 25th August, 2000 and it was notified in the Official Gazette on 9.11.2000 which is the 'appointed day' for the purpose of bifurcation of State of U.P. into two States, other one is State of Uttaranchal.2. In the State of U.P. the Department of Horticulture and Food Processing was created sometime in the year 1974. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed on the different post of Group 2 and Group 1 in the hill area of State of U.P. At that time there was only one H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-10-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC474; [2005(104)FLR985]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondents. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is running a sugar mill in the district of Bagpat known as The Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.'. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 27.11.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P. Meerut in Adjudication case No. 10/93. The award was enforced under Section 6C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by publication on the notice board on 14.1.1998.3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on temporary basis in clerical grade HI by order dated 17.2.1980. It was clarified ...
Tag this Judgment!