Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-10-2012
Manoj Misra, J. 1. I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma assisted by Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar Singh for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By this revision, the revisionist, who is the informant, has challenged the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2012, whereby the opposite party No.2 (Daulat Singh) has been declared juvenile in reference to Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.3. The facts, as they appear on the record, are that in respect to an incident dated 12.12.2011 relating to the murder of the informant's uncle, a first information report was lodged by the revisionist against six persons including the opposite party no.2 (Daulat Singh), which was registered as Case Crime No. 671 of 2011 at P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 147/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-23-2012
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. This is a tenant's writ petition. Respondent no. 1 is the owner and landlord of the building in dispute which consists of one room, i.e., a shop, in premises No. 88/373A (New No. 88/390), Humayunbagh, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is not in dispute that the shop in question was initially under tenancy of one Mohd. Ismail. The building was owned by somebody else and purchased by respondent no. 1, Sri Mansoor Ali vide sale deed dated 10.05.1985. He served a notice upon petitioner-tenant sometime in 1999 i.e. after the death of Sri Mohd. Ismail, and devolution of tenancy rights upon his legal heir(s). 4. Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), was filed in the year 2000 vide plaint dated 24.08.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-03-2012
1. The borrower and the guarantors of the financial assistance granted by the State Bank of India have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 2nd April, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by which the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kotak Mahindra Bank') for its substitution in place of the State Bank of India in the recovery certificate on the basis of the assignment deed dated 29th March, 2006 has been allowed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 11th May, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been dismissed. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that petitioner no.3- M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in fabrication and manufacturing work, was granted financial assistance by the State Bank of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-11-2012
1. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010, has been filed by some of the candidates who were admitted to the two years Basic Teachers Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'BTC') Course in the Academic Session 2008-09 in the Nehru Gram Bharti University, which is a deemed University, for quashing the order dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the Director of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (hereinafter referred to as 'SCERT') and for a direction upon the SCERT to recognize the BTC Course and the certificates awarded by the deemed University. 2. Writ Petition No.493 of 2012 has been filed by some of the candidates who had been granted admission by the deemed University to the BTC Course in the next Academic Session 2009-10 and the relief claimed in this petition is also for a direction upon the respondents to recognize the BTC Certificate awarded by the deemed University so that the petitioners can be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Junior B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-21-2012
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WITH the change of Government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the State of Uttar Pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. Ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties. 2. SIMILAR is the case in hand referred by the Division Bench of this Court relating to constitution of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in short CSM Nagar). 3. On account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of State Government to create districts, a Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted the present Bench. The questions referred by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under: (i) Whether the issuance of n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-07-2012
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!