Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All198
ORDER1. This revision by the defendants has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7-4-1993 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Hamirpur rejecting the application No. 80-Ka filed by the defendant-revisionists for temporary injunction and clarification of the order dated 11-12-1990, in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990.2. The contesting opposite parties had filed a caveat in this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the caveators that this revision filed against the order of the appellate court is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of All 218; (1979 All LJ 685) (FB). It may be mentioned that the report of the Stamp Reporter is also to the same effect. Learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, contended that the revision in the present case is not barred and is very much maintainable before this Court. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish the Full Bench Decision.3. To appreciate the argument of the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All25
ORDERR.R.K. TRIVEDI, J. 1. In all the aforesaid petitions, vires of Uttar Pradesh Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Means of Video) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Video Rules) has been questioned in some way or the other and all the petitions can be conveniently disposed of together. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petitions may be disposed of finally at this stage. Writ Petition No. 13556 of 1991 shall be the leading petition.2. Before dealing with the issues which are subject matter of determination in the aforesaid wirt petitions, it would be appropriate to mention in the brief the facts giving rise to the aforesaid petitions.Writ Petition No. 13556 of 1991 3. In this petition, petitioner's case is that for running Video Cinema, Shri Abhai Prakash who claims to be proprietor, constructed a permanent building in Sakaldiha Bazar, which is ouside the territory of Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi and has a population of more than ten thousand. An appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ59All; (1993)2UPLBEC1471
V.N. Khare, J.1. This special appeal arises out of order and judgment dated January 19, 1993 passed by learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, who are engaged in business of manufacture of Bidies. The appellants in the said writ petition challenged the validity of the notification dated June 21, 1993 issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 3(b) of theU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafterreferred to as the Act). By the aforesaid notification the State Government revised and fixedminimum rates of wages for the various categories of employees employed in Bidi makingindustry with a view to secure public convenience, maintenance of public order and maintaining employment. The learned Single Judgeupheld the validity of the aforesaid notification.Aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal.By agreement of the parties, the counter affidavits and rejoinder-affidavits filed in Writ Petition No. 22661 of 1991 have been re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1994CriLJ67
ORDERS.R. Singh, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application on hand is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. filed for quashing the complaint dated 8-12-92 (Annexure 1) instituted by respondent No. 2, namely, Ramji Chaudhary. The quashing of the complaint is sought inter alia, on the grounds that the complaint is baseless, vexatious and concocted and that it discloses no offence against the applicants under Sections 147/452/323/504/506, I.P.C. It is alleged in the application that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants under Section 190 read with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by means of the order dated 11-2-93 in a mechanical manner without application of mind and that the issue of process by the learned Magistrate in the instant case amounts to an abuse of the process of law/Court.2. Sri R. C. Yadav holding brief of Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant urged that the complaint in the instant case is fal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All91
ORDER1. All the four writ petitions are directed against the allotment of Colleges and specialties to candidates selected for admission to post Graduates Medical Courses in the State of U. P. They involve interpretation of common documents and thus with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties they were clubbed together and have been heard for final disposal. This common judgment will govern all the four petitions.2. The first two writ petitions are by general candidates while writ petitions at serial Nos. 3 and 4 above have been filed by students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the first two writ petitions which were filed earlier by an interim order admissions to Post-Graduate Courses in M.S. and M. D. and diploma in all the Medical Colleges of the State were stayed. Hearing in the said writ petitions hadcommenced. Thereafter the last two writ petitions were filed. The opposite parties were granted time to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All258
ORDER1. Present case, as it appears, isan outcome of erosion while history was on a changing course, which is led to issuance of proclamation under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution') vide Notification No. G.S.R. 912 dated December 6, 1992 (published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) (part II) dated Dec. 6,1992) bringing the State of Uttar Pradesh under President Rule and banning the orgniasations, inter alia, the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the RSS') by declaring it unlawful vide composite Notification No. S. O. 901(E) dated December 10, 1992 (published in the Gazette of India (extraordinary) dated December 10, 1992 under sub-sec. (1) as well as the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act No. 37 of 1967) (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which reads as :--Whereas the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All66
ORDER1. These 39 Appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 20-7-1989 of I Addl. District Judge, Budaun given in 39 Land Acquisition References. Since all the references had been consolidated in accordance with Order IV, A, C.P.C. (as Amended in the State of U.P.) they are being disposed of by a common order. First AppealNo. 658 of 1989 Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Sadhu Singh and others arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 5 of 1988 shall be treated as leading case. The appeals were filed by M/s. Tata Fertilizers, Babrala Project, Budaun. Subsequently vide Court's order dated 25-4-1991 the name of the original appellant was deleted and Tata Chemicals Ltd., Bombay House, Bombay was substituted in its place.2. At the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, the State Government acquired land in several villages including Pawari, Baghau and Mehua Hasanganj in the district of Badaun for the purpose of setting up a Fertilizer Factory by Tatas. After acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All153
ORDER1. In this petition counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 who is the main contesting party. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of petitioners, and both the learned counsel for parties have agreed that petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. It is relevant to mention here that respondents 3 to25 are pro forma parties and they have not been contesting the proceedings at any stage and the petition may be disposed of finally even in their absence and from the facts it is clear that no prejudice will be caused to them.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 2 filed Original Suit No. 1022 of 1992 claiming a decree of permanent injunction restraining petitioners not to dispossess her from the shop in dispute in pursuance of the decree dated 12-5-1979, passed in Original Suit No. 287 of 1977. She has claimed herself as tenant of the shop No. 84 (old), new number 332, situate in Mohalla Sabji Mandi, Kotla, Chaupala, G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3421
J.P. Semwal, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-11-1978 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 1977, whereby he recorded conviction of the appellants 1 and 2 under Section 302, I.P.C. and appellant 3, under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C, for committing murder of Budhai and his wife Smt. Bhanumati, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The gravamen of the charge is that on 7th April 1977, at about noon in village Neoraj, P.S. Kakwan, district Kanpur, in furtherance of common intention of all, the appellants Kunwar and Lajjaram committed murder of Budhai and his wife Smt. Bhanumati. The appellant 3 Chhidda had exhorted the other two appellants to commit the said murder.3. The aforesaid double murder took place in village Neoraj within the limits of P.S. Kakwan, district Kanpur. This tiny village is situate at a distance of 8 miles tow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1994All187
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which the following reliefs have been prayed for:--(a) directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 30-11-1992 and 17-3-1993 (Annexures Nos. III and IV) as also the representation of Sri Surendra Singh dated 17-3-1993 (Annexure V) respectively in accordance with the judgment/ guidelines of the Supreme Court referred to above. (b) directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment referred to above. (c) granting any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) awarding the costs of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. Sri Swatantra Kumar Agarwal is its partner. It has established a rice mill by investing Rs. 6.55 lacs from its own resources. The U. P. Financial Corporation, respondent No. 2 advanced a loan of a...
Tag this Judgment!