Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(3)AWC2509
shishir kumar, j.1. the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 8.2.2006 passed by respondent no. 3, annexure-1 to the writ petition, further prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.2.2006 passed by respondent no. 4, annexure-2 to the writ petition and 15.2.2006 passed by respondent no. 3, annexure-12 to the writ petition. the further prayer is also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the possession of the entire premises situate at a-1, sector-59, noida.2. the facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a nationalized bank, in usual course of business, granted a term loan of rs. 3 crores to respondent no. 7. a copy of the agreement dated 10.2.2003 between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 has been filed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. the said hypothecation agreement was in respect of plant and machinery as well as all the other fixed assets. so far was 158 sewing machines and 13 embroidery machineries are concerned, the petitioner has a first charge upon the said assets whereas in respect of all other fixed assets, the petitioner has second charge inasmuch as the first charge in respect of other assets is with the punjab national bank. in the hypothecation agreement it has been mentioned that the factory is situate at a-1, sector-59, noida, u.p. it has been informed by respondent no. 7 accordingly. the agreement entered into .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas910(All)
k.c. agrawal, j.1. these are three connected special appeals under chapter viii, rule 5 of the high court rules against the order dated 22nd december, 1982, passed by a learned single judge in company petition no. 12 of 1982, on an application for temporary injunction.2. after the conclusion of arguments on april 27, 1983, we passed a brief order allowing the appeals partly and we are giving the detailed reasons.3. the facts giving rise to these appeals are that o. p. no. 1, somani steels ltd., is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956. the issued capital of the company is rs. 50,00,000 in 5 lakhs equity shares of rs. 10 each. the paid up capital is rs. 49,63,000. o. p. no. 2, r. k. somani, is the managing director. the following pedigree gives the details of somani family which holds more than 50 per cent. of shares. h.k.somani (died on 4-5-77) =smt. ratan devi somani (died on 24-3-1978) | _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | r.k.somani s.k.somani n.k.somani m.k.somani d.k.somani (o.p.no.2) =smt. saroj =smt. premlata (petitioner)=smt. phool somani somani =smt. sarojlata somani somani(o. p. no. 5 ) |____________________________| |k.k.somani smt. pushpa somani(o.p.no.3)d.k. somani, petitioner, gave an application under section 155 of the companies act, 1956 (to be referred hereafter as 'the act'), for the rectification of the register of opposite party no. 1, somani .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1977All426
t.s. misra, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow, afford and accord equal opportunity to the petitioner through the mass media t. v. and air like any other party or party candidates to put his case and views regarding his candidature to the forthcoming u. p. legislative assembly elections. the petitioner has filed his nomination on 18th may, 1977 as an independent candidate seeking election to the u. p. legislative assembly from lucknow east constituency. he has alleged that with a view to edge an advantage to the janta party candidates over the independent candidates opposite party no. 1, who is an important member of the janta party, has issued a statement and order misusing his high governmental position as minister of information and broadcasting that television and all india radio facilities will be given to the janta party and not to the independent candidates vide a news item appearing in the statesman dated 21st may, 1977 on pages 1 and 7 allowing the janta party an opportunity to broadcast in two instalments of 15 minutes each from all india radio which will also be covered by regional news bulletins. in addition, telecasts from television are also allowed to the janta party of 15 minutes duration from 25th may, 1977 to 7th june, 1977. this, according to the petitioner, will handicap independent candidates by debarring them from reaching millions of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2601; 2005(2)ESC1116
b.s. chauhan, j.1. this is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 4/3/2004, by which the special appeal filed by the present applicant stood dismissed against the judgment and order dated 21/6/2002 of the learned single judge, by which the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 stood allowed, quashing the order dated 30/9/1995, impugned in the writ petition, with a direction to the other respondents to pay the salary to the said respondent no. 1 month by month.2. there has been an inter se dispute between the applicant and shri vinod shanker tiwari, respondent no. 1 as petitioner had also put her claim for the same post. however, the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 stood allowed. being aggrieved, applicant filed the special appeal, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid judgment and order. hence this review application.3. we have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the materials available on record.4. this review application has been filed not by the counsel who had argued the matter earlier, but by a different counsel which is not generally permissible in view of the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in tamil nadu electricity board and anr. v. n. raju reddiar and anr : air1997sc1005 . thus, we are very much doubtful regarding the maintainability of the review petition itself.5. shri h.n. singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised large number of issues and tried to persuade the court that the matter .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC544; (1999)1UPLBEC601
d.k. seth, j.1. smt. maya johri wife of the petitioner died on 26.5.1989 while she was in service. the petitioner by means of this petition had claimed that amount of pension, gratuity amount, group insurance and general provident fund linked insurance have not been paid to him. he also claims that the wife of the petitioner should have been granted selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. in the writ petition, no case has been madeout as to how the deceased was eligible to selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. therefore, such a claim cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition in absence or any material.2. mr. j. k. tiwari, holding the brief of mr. shashi nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the g.p.f. amount has been paid to him, but the gratuity, amount of group insurance and g.p.f. linked insurance has not been paid. in the counter-affidavit, as pointed out by mr. k. r. singh, learned standing counsel, it is contended that the gratuity could not be paid since the deceased did not nominate any one and as such in the absence of succession certificate, such gratuity cannot be paid. it seems that there is substance in the submission of mr. singh. in para 2 of the writ petition. it has been stated that the petitioner had been claiming that the deceased in her life time nominated the petitioner as her nominee. the said part has been dealt with in the counter-affidavit in para 4 to the extent that the deceased did not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1158; (2005)2UPLBEC1328
sabhajeet yadav, j.1. the facts of the case in brief are that while working as collection amin in the revenue department of the government of uttar pradesh, a fir was registered against the petitioner along with five other persons under section 147, 148, 149 and 302 ipc, at police station jam, district meerut. after trial of the aforesaid case all the six persons including the petitioner were convicted by court of 1st additional sessions judge, meerut vide judgment and order dated 30.6.1984. according to the petitioner, on account of his conviction under section 148, 149 and 302 i.p.c., in the aforesaid criminal case his services were terminated vide order dated 10.12.1987 passed by the district magistrate/collector, meerut. against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1984, the petitioner and other convicted persons have preferred an appeal before this court, which was numbered as criminal appeal no. 1772 of 1984. on 4.4.1996 the aforesaid appeal was allowed by division bench of this court, whereby the order of conviction and sentence has been set aside. in para 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the 'appellate court has held that considering all these circumstances, it must be held that the doubt having arisen on the question of the acceptability or reliability of the prosecution story is of such nature which is not only a reasonable one but which also reinforces the theory that manohar and kunita were not there at the time of murder of subhash'. it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All440
orders.s. dhavan, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution praying for the quashing of an order of rent control and eviction officer kanpur (respondent no. 1) dated 10-9-1956, declaring a godown belonging to the petitioner as vacant for allotment, and for a writ in the nature of mandmus commanding the aforesaid officer to withdraw the impugned order and not to continue the allotment proceedings in respect of the house.2. the petitioner, abdul shakoor is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute known as no. 95/32 pechbagh kanpur. the respondent no. 1 is the rent control and eviction officer, kanpur and the respondent no. 2 the district magistrate of kanpur. the respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 are persons who made applications for allotment of the house and are rival claimants.3. the relevant facts, as stated in the petitioner's affidavit, are these. the property in dispute is a godown which is a part of the premises no. 95/32 pechbagh kanpur mentioned above. the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the premises and residing in it. there was some dispute between various persons and the petitioner about this godown, which is not relevant to the present controversy. it ended in the petitioner's favour on 10-5-1955 when the rent control and eviction officer kanpur, hereinafter to be called r.c. and e.o., passed an order releasing the godown in the petitioner's favour in the following terms:'reference your application dated 3-5-1958 regarding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1580
sunil ambwani, j.1. heard shri salil kumar rai for the petitioner. shri p. n. saxena, senior advocate appears for the respondents.2. the plaintiff-petitioner filed original suit no. 451 of 1993, raghuvir singh v. smt. prabhawati devi and ors. for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, first set, from interfering in his rights on the suit property given at the foot of the plaint, on the allegations that he had purchased 3/4th portion of plot no. 2602 area 0-7-1 dhoor and plot no. 2603 area 0-6-14 and plot no. 2849 situate at mauja basti khas tappa haveli pargana basti from abdul rauf son of sardar khan; rais ahmad son of abdul majid and ashiq ali son of mohd. saleem by a sale deed dated 22.2.1985 and was given possession of the property. he is continuing in possession since, thereafter. the defendant third set namely manuddin and others (defendant nos. 7 to 12) have sold their 1/4th portion in the same property in favour of smt. prabhawati, heera lal and shravan kumar, the defendant-first set. it was stated that after purchasing the land the plaintiff constructed the boundary wall and two rooms after getting the shallow land of the plot filled up by earth work. the defendant first set made an attempt to interfere in his rights giving rise to the cause of action to the plaintiff on 9.5.1993 to file the suit.3. the trial court issued notice and granted an interim injunction on 10.5.1993 directing the defendants to maintain status quo and restraining them to demolish the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC629
o.p. garg, j.1. by means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners are seeking to challenge the correctness, legality and validity of the action and omission, on the part of the respondents in excluding the petitioners from the combined seniority list of lecturers serving in the government inter colleges in the state of u. p.2. during the pendency of the writ petition, ad interim order was passed by hon'ble b. m. lal, j., (as his lordship then was) on 24.8.1991. which runs as follows :'heard learned counsel for the parties on stay. vide order dated 7.5.1991 this court directed to the respondents, the state, that they shall take decision within a month and communicate the same to the petitioners. however, still the standing counsel is not in a position to make any statement as to whether the government has taken decision in this regard or not. under these circumstances, this court is constrained to pass an ad interim stay order in favour of the petitioners as sought for. the interim relief is granted in the following terms : the respondents are directed to include the petitioners' name in the combined seniority list of lecturers serving in the government inter colleges in the state of u. p. and to treat them at par with lecturers in any other subjects. further it is directed that the petitioners will also be given selection grade in terms of relevant g.os. issued by the government from time to time. dt. 24.8.1991 sd./-b. m. lal, j.' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All713
niamatullah, j.1. this revision arises in the following circumstances: the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the munsif of ballia for a declaration of her title to 17 bighas odd of tenancy including two groves, and in the alternative for recovery of possession against the defendants. she of course did not implead the landholder. in paras. 6,7 and 8 it was admitted that defendant 1, although he had no right to the property had got his name entered in the column of remarks as being in possession of a portion of the plot, that the name of defendant 2 was recorded in the revenue papers though merely for her consolation that the zamindar applied for the expungement of the name of the defendant (defendant 1), from the record on which defendant 1 took objections; later on the zamindar in collusion with defendant 1 had his application struck off and although the plaintiff has been in possession of the lands in dispute defendant 1 on the strength of the said order was interfering with the plaintiff's possession. she alleged that although the name of defendant 2 stood recorded in the papers jointly with that of the plaintiff she was really not objecting to the plaintiff's rights. she claimed a declaration of title and in the alternative recovery of possession if by reason of the entry of the name of defendant 1 along with that of the plaintiff it be c7onsidered that the plaintiff has been dispossessed.2. the defendant denied that the plaintiff was the tenant of the lands in .....
Tag this Judgment!