Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-30-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3114
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 filed O.S. No. 842 of 1999 before the learned Additional Civil Judge. IIIrd Court. Allahabad for the following reliefs :(a) That by decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed not to transfer the plaintiffs from City Allahabad to any other city. (b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (c) That any other and further reliefs be also awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant which the Court deems fit and proper In the interest of justice. 2. In connection with the said suit, the opposite parry Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had filed an application for injunction. By an order dated 28th July, 1999 notices were directed to be issued on the petitioner, while the learned trial court was not satisfiedthat ad interim order could be issued before issuing the notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revision No. 940 of 1999. The learned Additional Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-10-1999
Reported in : (1999)3UPLBEC2179
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 12231 of 1997.2. The following issue formulated by this Court at the commencement of hearing, requires consideration :'The question is whether apart from providing reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Courses in Engineering and Medicine for special category candidates, it is open open to the State to prescribe different admission criteria, in the sense of prescribing different minimum qualifying marks, for special category candidates seeking admission under the reserved category.'This question certainly requires consideration of the Constitution Bench as it arises and is likely to arise in a number of cases in different institutions of the country and needs to be decided authoritatively keeping in view the observations made in three different tow or three-Judge Bench judgments'. These judgments are Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., JT 1994 (2) SC 662 ; Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-02-1999
Reported in : 2000(2)AWC897
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It has been provided that no suit for infringement of a registered trade mark, or relating to any right in a registered trade mark or for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.2. In this revision, a short question is involved as to whether the Court of Additional District Judge can try and decide the suit instituted in the Court of District Judge and lateron transferred to it for trial and decision and whether the Court of Additional District Judge is an inferior Court to a District Court. The 'District Court' has been defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. According to which, 'District Court' has the mea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-27-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2127
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This was a simple case. Difficulties have arisen due to the passage of time. It was more than thirty years ago that Dr. Kalindi Mittal, (the landlady for short) filed an application. It was to obtain permission under Section 3 of U. P. Temporary (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947 (the old Act for short) to file a suit to evict the tenant on the ground of her personal need. With the passage of time, new equity, new laws have come up, complicating the case. These are the vagaries of 'time consuming litigation' ; leaving one in doubt, which side Themis' is. But then I have to do my bit, take a decision and side with one on whose side Themis is. In short, it is a landlords' writ petition against the orders dated 21.5.1981 and 6.5.1980 rejecting their application under Section 21 (1) read with Section 43 (rr) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short).FACTS 2. Dr. Kalindi Mitter (the landlady) was the owner of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-05-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC534; (2000)1UPLBEC655
Onkareshwar Bhati, J.1. Bymeans of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19.7.1999. Annexure-26 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to issue an order granting permission to the petitioner to commence medical college as per the scheme submitted without any further inspection or enquiry within the period so fixed by the Court.2. Sri Sudhir Chandra Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Kirit Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Maninder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 were heard at length and in detail.3. The petitioner is a registered charitable trust. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-08-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2459; (1999)2UPLBEC1573
Ashok A. Desai, J.1. These four writ petitions since raise common question of facts and law have been heard together and are decided by a common judgment.2. Pursuant to Cabinet decision, the Government by order dated 2.4.1998, directed to convert six Government Allopathic Medical Colleges into each individual autonomous Societies and to transfer of properties and equipments of Medical Colleges to the corresponding Societies. Minister of Medical Education, in each Society has been nominated as Chairman of Board of Governors. Model bye-laws to be prepared by the Government, have to be adopted by the concerned Society. Accordingly, vide Circular dated 14.9.1998 model bye-laws were issued. On 17.10.1998, six societies were independently registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to the Act). These petitions have questioned validity, propriety and motivation of these decisions.3. During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate General presented affidavit swor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-16-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3015
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These two criminal appeals (No. 182 of 1980 and No. 472 of 1980) were preferred by Sheo Lal, Suresh and Surendra, arising out of judgment and order dated 25-1-1980 passed by Sri U. S. Trlpathi, the then IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in S. T. Nos. 190 of 1979 and 212 of 1979, against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34, T. P. C. Appellants Sheo Lal & Suresh (in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1980) are also convicted under Section 323/34,1.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R. I. Appellant Surendra (in criminal Appeal No. 472 of 1980) is also convicted under Section 354,1. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R. I.2. The prosecution story, in short, is that in the evening of 20-3-1979 at about 6.00 P. M. Km. Sharmi was going to attend the call of nature. P. W. 4 Km. Sharmi was moving few steps ahead of Km. Munni. It is alleged that at the relevant moment Surendra and Suresh accosted Km. Sharmi. They told her to accompany them into Ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-14-1999
Reported in : [2000]119STC271(All)
Pradeep Kant, J.1. This is a bunch of writ petitions filed by different firms and companies who deal in the manufacturing of medicines, viz., life saving drugs. The message of the Commissioner, Sales Tax (which is now known as 'Trade Tax') issued in the year 1992 wherein it has been clarified that exemption in sales tax would only be available to those life saving drugs which are being sold with the same very names which find mention in the notification dated March 31, 1992 and not to those drugs which are being sold in their own 'brand name', is under challenge in these writ petitions.2. The petitioners who are manufacturers of life saving drugs in their factories situate at different parts of the country and are carrying on their business within territorial jurisdiction of the State of U.P. have put their claims for exemption of sales tax placing reliance upon the notification issued by the State Government. The Notification No. S.T.-2-1217 dated March 31, 1992 has been issued by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-27-1999
Reported in : (1999)3UPLBEC2452
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as permanent employee instead of seasonal employee on the date when his juniors have been confirmed. The writ petition has been directed against the Bajpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., a Co-operative Society, registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Before Mr. Dilia learned Counsel for the petitioner could open his case, Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondents has taken a preliminary objection.2. According to Mr. Mishra, the Co-operative Sugar Factory, is a Cooperative Society which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as has been held in the case of Radha Charan Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Federation and Ors., 1982 UPLBEC 89(FB) : 1982 ALR 342 (FB), and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No. 1. He then contends that no writ lies against Kishan Sahkari Chini Mill, which has since b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-12-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC594
P.K. Jain, J.1. This secondappeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 3.10.98 dismissing the first appeal of the appellants and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in Suit NO. 309 of 1995.2. Plaintiff-respondent S.M. Chopra filed the aforesaid suit for the following substantial reliefs :(a) That by the decree of this Hon'ble Court it may be declared that the resignation of the plaintiff dated 11.3.92 being obtained by the defendants by force, under coercion and without the free consent and will of the plaintiff is illegal and voidable and is not binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is continuing in services of the defendants without any effect of the said resignation letter. (b) That by the decree of mandatory injunction, the defendants be directed to deposit all the dues of the plaintiff including the arrears of salary, emoluments and allowances as well as with the amount relating to the encashmen...
Tag this Judgment!