Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1988All79
A.N. Varma, J.1. The petitioner is an association which claims to represent 450 out of 726 cold storages operating in different parts of the State. The association assails the validity of the U. P. Government Notification No. 847/XII-4-585-86, dated February 19, 1987 issued by the- State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of U. P..Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (the 'Act', in brief) fixing the maximum hiring charges which a licencee may charge for storing potatoes in the cold storage including any other service rendered in connection therewith at Rs. 23A per quintal for the period from February 15, 1987 to November, 30, 1987 or part thereof in the whole of Uttar Pradesh.2. The petition represents a class of litigations which have, over the years, become an annual feature in this Court. Each year that the Government notifies maximum storage charges under the said Act for potatoes cold storages of Uttar Pradesh have been making an annual trip to this Court on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All716
S.B. Chandiramani, J. 1. It appears that on the 10th April, 1934, Debi Singh, one of the appellants, executed a deed described as a deed of conditional sale in favour of one Atbal Singh (predecessor of some of the respondents) in respect of a one-third share of mahal Chaudhri Harpal Singh in village Bangarmau, District Unnao. Debi Singh applied under Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act showing the property covered thereby as his own. He claimed that the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed of 1934 was in fact a mortgage by conditional sale. Atbal Singh objected saying that it was an out and out sale subject to a condition of repurchase within a specified time. The Special Judge held that Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act when correctly construed does not indicate that every deed of sale containing a condition for repurchase operated only as a deed of mortgage and the true test still is the intention of the parties which may be gathered from the language of the deed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Substantial questions of law involved in the present writ petition are:A. Whether Government may withdraw the rebate granted in pursuance to notification issued under Section 5 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (in short hereinafter referred as the Act)? In case, Government has got power then under what circumstances?B. Whether in case industry is established and availing the rebate will entitle to avail the benefit for the remaining period even after withdrawal of notification issued under Section 5 of the Act under the principle of promissory estopple ?2. Brief facts are as under: Section 5 of the Act is an enabling provision which confers power on the state government to issue a notification in public interest along with rebate up to full amount of tax on sale and purchase of public goods or on sale or purchase of any goods by such person or class of person. The notification is issued in public interest to encourage the establishment of industries as well as to secur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1887)ILR9All617
Straight, J.1. In reference to this first appeal from Order No. 35 of 1887, Pandit Ajudhia Nath, on behalf of the respondents, objects to Mr. Amir-ud-din, who appears to support the appeal on behalf of Mr. Reid, who handed over his brief to him, on two grounds: first, that Mr. Reid, as an English barrister, had no power to take direct instructions from the appellant and file the appeal; and, secondly, that if he had such power, he had no power to hand over his brief to Mr. Amir-ud-din, and therefore the appeal ought to be dismissed in default of any person competent to act or to appear on behalf of the appellant having acted or appeared on his behalf. I refer these two points to the Court at large for determination.Mahmood, J.2. I agree.3. The Hon, Pandit Ajudhia Nath, for the respondents, in support of the objections.--I contend that an English barrister is not entitled to file an appeal, or to 'act' for his client in other similar ways. He is not entitled to do so by reason of a posi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC906; (2005)2UPLBEC1822
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad on the administrative side, reverting the petitioner to next below rank, i.e., from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), as a punishment after holding disciplinary proceedings, vide Order dated 12.11.1997.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner Joined as a Judicial Magistrate/Munsif in 1981, and while he was working as ACJM, Mathura, in 1994, he had entertained certain bail applications and granted the bail to the accused on 24.12.1994. The complainant in that case had sent a complaint to this Court, whereupon explanation of the petitioner as well as report of the District Judge, Mathura were called for, whereafter an Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and duly approved charge-sheet dated 9.8.1996 was issued. The petitioner was charged with the allegations that he had acted with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1967All576; [1967(14)FLR226]; (1967)IILLJ77All
B. Dayal, J.1. These are two connected references by a single Judge of the Court The only question to be answered is:'Does the District Court hearing the appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act act as a civil court subordinate to the High Court or function as a persona designate?' The question, as it is framed, confines the answer only to the effect whether the District Court hearing an appeal under Section 17 is a civil court subordinate to the High Court or is a persona designate Section 15 of the said Act provides as follows:'The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint any Com-missioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a civil court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area.'By Section 17, an order, either dismissing an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993(63)ELT626(All)
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 13th February, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The order dated 13-2-1979 had been served on the petitioner on 15-2-1979. The appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. The period of limitation for filing the appeal prescribed under Section 35 of the Act as it stood at that time was only three months. The aforesaid appeal, which had been filed on 28-5-1979 was therefore barred by eleven days on the date of its filing. In this view of the matter, the petitioner prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal itself.2. The Appellate Authority rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All245
Mootham, C.J. 1. The applicant filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 1,39,000 due on a promissory note. The trial court ordered to be recorded a compromise which the applicant contended had been arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the suit,, and it passed a decree in the terms of the compromise save with regard to one provision thereof. Two of the defendants appealed to this Court under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (m) C. P. C. against the order recording the compromise, and this Court by an order dated the 28th September, 1959, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. The plaintiff then filed an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Bench hearing the application has referred to this Court the following question. 'whether the order of this Court reversing the order of the trial court recording a compromise amounts to a judgment or final order within the meaning of these terms in Article 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Tag this Judgment!