Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (1.91 seconds)
Documents citing Moti Lal And Ors. vs The Government Of The State Of Uttar ... on 11 May, 1950

Sagir Ahmad And Ors. vs The Govt. Of The State Of Uttar Pradesh ... on 17 November, 1953

52. I may here point out that reliance was placed by the petitioners on the Full Bench decision of -- 'Moti Lal v. Uttar Pradesh Govt. (A)' to contend that where an Act conferred power on the State whereby it could discriminate against persons in its own favour then such a power was hit by the guarantee contained in Article 14. The argument before the Full Bench was that Section 42(3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act was 'ultra vires' inasmuch as it conferred power on the State to discriminate between individuals and itself. The provisions of Section 42(3) (a) are in these words :
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Jagat Bus Service vs State Transport Authority And Ors. on 24 July, 1951

1. I should like to indicate my attitude towards the line taken by my brother, Agarwala J., and, with this object in view, I propose to make in this case a few remarks of my own. The question whether any or all the members of the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority were validly nominated or not came up for consideration before us at the time when we were disposing of the Full Bench case of Moti Lal v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 257. Reference may be made to the observations relating to this matter by the various learned Judges composing that Bench. The learned Chief Justice was not impressed with the argument that officials of Government serving in the Transport Department must be said to have a financial interest inasmuch as their service depended upon the continuation of the Transport Department. He went on to observe that without further facts it would be impossible to hold that a person who was in the permanent service of the State could be deemed to have acquired a financial interest in an undertaking started by the Government by merely being put in charge of that Department. Mootham and Wanchoo JJ. pointed out that there could, at the time that the Motor Vehicles Act was passed be no objection to the Provincial and Regional Transport Authorities being composed of Government servants and persons nominated by the Government for they had to decide only the merits of conflicting claims between citizens and citizens. That might, however, cease to be so when the Government itself operated a transport undertaking. They went on, however, to observe that sufficient facts had not been placed before them to enable them to say whether any of the persons who at that time composed the various Transport Authorities had a financial interest whether as a proprietor or employee or otherwise in any transport undertaking within the meaning of Section 44 (2). They left that question as an open question which might require consideration at a later stage. The view which I took was that the object of the section, i. e., Section 44 (2), was to ensure that the persons appointed must be persons possessed of an independent mind not tied to the vested interests of such transport business. On that assumption I remarked that the scheme ruled out the appointment of officials serving either permanently or temporarily on a loan basis in the Transport Department. The remark was further made by me that the difficulty in deciding the question raised was one connected with facts. I indicated that on the assumption that the Regional Transport Officer got his salary from the budget of the Transport Department, I would be prepared to hold that he was disqualified from acting on the Board. I do not think that that disqualification would attach to some other officers as they had nothing to do with the Transport Department and that it would be going too far to hold that a permanent official who does not occupy the position of a transport official appointed to the Board was covered by the disqualification laid down by Section 44(2) of the Act. Agarwala J. pointed out that a person could be said to have a financial interest only if he was an employee of the body, carrying on any transport undertaking. On that assumption, he held that Government employees in the Roadways Department undoubtedly fell under Section 44 (2), Motor Vehicles Act and if any such persons were found to have been appointed as members of the State Regional Transport Authority, their appointment would be invalid. He was unable to make any order in regard to that matter as the facts of that part of the case were not clear to him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Budh Prakash Jai Prakash And Anr. vs The Sales Tax Officer And Ors. on 27 February, 1952

17. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State must be dealt with first. In the present case, writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are sought. In what circumstances these writs should be issued or refused is well known. It has been held in this Court that these writs should be issued only when there is no other adequate, equally convenient, beneficial and effectual remedy available to the applicant, vide 'MOTI LAL v. GOVT. OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH', AIR 1951 All 257 (FB). It is clear that the mere fact that there is another remedy available is not sufficient. In order to debar an applicant from seeking his remedy in this Court, the alternative remedy must be 'equally convenient, beneficial and effective'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Kshama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Urban ... on 25 August, 2006

43. In view of the above, the connected writ petition Nos. 73290 of 2005 Nisha Sahakari Avas Samiti v. State of U.P. and Ors. 76436 of 2005 Maya Nagar Ari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 133 of 2006 Ram Vatika Colony and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1542 of 2006 Tej Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1544 of 2006 Narayan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1545 of 2006 Sahab Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1549 of 2006 Asharam and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1567 of 2006 Roshan Lal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1573 of 2006 Ram Niwas and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5672 of 2006 Niranjan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5673 of 2006 Daya Kishan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5703 of 2006 Bani Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5893 of 2006 Prabhu Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5900 of 2006 Thakur Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5973 of 2006 Gaya Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7400 of 2006 Londu Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7541 of 2006 Ram Bharosi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7543 of 2006 Ram Bharosi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7544 of 2006 Munna Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7546 of 2006 Hari Mohan and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7556 of 2006 Nawal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7557 of 2006 Keshav Deo and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7559 of 2006 Suresh Kumar Arora v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7562 of 2006 Ram Babu and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7563 of 2006 Ekta Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7564 of 2006 Golden Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 7565 of 2006 Jai Hanuman Sahakari Avas Samiti and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8169 of 2006 Sri Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8172 of 2006 Mahaveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8174 of 2006 Rakesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8176 of 2006 Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8183 of 2006 Son Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8185 of 2006 Ram Sewak Upadhaya and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8189 of 2006 Sundar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72064 of 2005 Anvesh Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72066 of 2005 Anant Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72067 of 2005 Rajpur Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72069 of 2005 Goyal Investment v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72070 of 2005 Seeta Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 72074 of 2005 Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 74836 of 2005 Julian Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 75708 of 2005 Paras Gramin Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 76469 of 2005 Nirmala Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78288 of 2005 Udai Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78307 of 2005 Maa Gange Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78346 of 2005 Roshan Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78041 of 2005 Viri Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78042 of 2005 Kishan Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78043 of 2005 Vipati Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78044 of 2005 Kitab Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78045 of 2005 Maharaj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78046 of 2005 Gokul Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 28253 of 2005 Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78770 of 2005 Maa Sharda Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 78254 of 2005 Om Sai Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Agra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 138 of 2006 Kashi Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 399 of 2006 Ravi Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. 238 of 2006 Moti Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1674 of 2006 Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2190 of 2006 Geeta Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2192 of 2006 Naval Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2194 of 2006 Chittar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2195 of 2006 Ram Kishan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2197 of 2006 Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2199 of 2006 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2200 of 2006 Ghandharv Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2201 of 2006 Giriraj Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2449 of 2006 Ramji Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2452 of 2006 Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2455 of 2006 Gyasi Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2686 of 2006 Prem Datta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 6354 of 2006 Upasna Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 11541 of 2006 Govardhan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 11710 of 2006 Bachchoo Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 10280 of 2006 Vijay Oberoi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 74968 of 2006 Shanti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 10902 of 2006 Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 77060 of 2005 Smt. Amita Kapoor and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 77194 of 2005 Smt. Ramkali and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2271 of 2006 Manish Surana and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2320 of 2006 Keshav Dham and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2321 of 2006 Pramod Kr. Agarwal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2323 of 2006 Laxmi Narayan and Ors. v. State of U.P, and Anr. 2847 of 2006 Mahavir Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4249 of 2006 Kartik Chandra Samaddar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4254 of 2006 Om Narain and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4255 of 2006 Manik Chand and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4257 of 2006 Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4260 of 2006 Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4261 of 2006 Param Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4262 of 2006 Doongar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4263 of 2006 Bachchoo Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4363 of 2006 Sri Krishna and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5362 of 2006 Chittar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 5363 of 2006 Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 6134 of 2006 Sewa Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 6137 of 2006 Anupam Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 6579 of 2006 Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 6705 of 2006 Sudhir Kumar Agarwal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 6837 of 2006, Sri Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8545 of 2006 Smt. Geeta v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8548 of 2006 Ganga Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8908 of 2006 Ishwara @ Ishwari Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. 8964 of 2006 Smt. Ramkatori and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9006 of 2006 Brij Bihari Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9043 of 2006 Naval Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9217 of 2006 Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9309 of 2006 Puran Chandra and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9469 of 2006 Ashok Kumar Jam v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9470 of 2006 Madhubala and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9471 of 2006 Allo v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9472 of 2006 Sukhoo v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9473 of 2006 Ramknmar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9833 of 2006 Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 9834 of 2006 Indra Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. 79424 of 2005 Latoori Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 10903 of 2006 Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 10905 of 2006 Roop Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 11322 of 2006 Brij Mohan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2968 of 2006 Roop Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2979 of 2006 Kishan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2980 of 2006 Vijendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3367 of 2006 Navin Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Agra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3373 of 2006 Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3375 of 2006 Doji Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3377 of 2006 Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3378 of 2006 Nirrotam Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3694 of 2006 Hari Babu and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 4024 of 2006 Smt. Hemlata and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 75305 of 2005 Smt. Devki and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 77816 of 2005 Mahesh Chand Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2189 of 2006 Beni Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors. 12253 of 2006 Shiv Shakti Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 12257 of 2006 Chinmay Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 12261 of 2006 Ramji Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 12263 of 2006 Jai Sri Ram Gramin Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 12823 of 2006 Smt. Kiran Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 13286 of 2006 Smt. Pushpa Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 13805 of 2006 Mata Din v. State of U.P. and Ors. 14857 of 2006 Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 14859 of 2006 Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 14861 of 2006 Mishri Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 14862 of 2006 Satyam Sahkari Avas Samiti v. State of U.P. and Ors. 14865 of 2006 Jawahar Chand v. State of U.P. and Ors. 15545 of 2006 Hoti Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 16421 of 2006 Shashi Bala Dixit v. State of U.P. and Ors. 24157 of 2006 Paras Gramin Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 26570 of 2006 Smt. Resham Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. also stand partly allowed on the same terms and conditions.
Allahabad High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 4 - P Mithal - Full Document

Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service vs The State Of Bombay on 16 January, 1957

20. A somewhat subsidiary point that was urged in this context by Mr. Laud may also be noticed at this stage. As I have stated earlier, Section 47 enumerates the matters which a Regional Transport Authority or a State Transport Authority has to take into account in deciding whether to grant or to refuse a stage carriage permit. Mr. Laud draws my attention to a statement in Mr. Bhambri's affidavit in para. 5 where Mr. Bhambri states that the Regional Transport Authority fully considered all factors "including the matters set out in Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act"; and the contention urged by Mr. Laud is that this averment show that they took into account matters other than those enumerated in Section 47 and to the extent to which they did so their order is liable to be set aside. In the first place, this is an attempt to put too literal a construction on this affidavit; and in the absence of any averment that any other considerations-apart, of course, from the circular and nationalisation, with which I have specifically dealt-were taken into account by the Regional Transport Auhority, it seems to me difficult to hold that the order is vitiated because some other consideration may have been taken into account. Mr. Laud has drawn my attention to certain passages in the judgments of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Moti Lal v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and particularly to a passage in the judgment of Mr. Justice Sapru at page 365, where the learned Judge in terms states:
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Saraswati Joshi vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 March, 2002

12. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Moti Lal Agarwal and others v. State of U. P. and others (supra). The petitioner has already annexed the Notification issued by the State Government dated 18.2.1984 by which all the Nagar Nigams are directed to pay dearness allowance at par with the employees of the State Government. The petitioner has argued that in view of the Rules of Nagar Nigam, Varanast, amended in 1997 to pay the dearness allowance at par with the Government retired employees, read with Government order dated 13.4.2000 and Notification dated 18.2.1984, the family pension of the petitioner should not be less than 30 per cent admissible to her since 1.1.1996.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document

Moti Lal S/O Late Shankar Nath And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 20 November, 2007

11. It is no doubt true that the regularisation was offered to the private respondents vide order dated 10th December, 2003. The petitioners approached this Court immediately by filing of Writ Petition No. 44773 of 2003 (Moti Lal and 21 Ors. v. The State of U.P. and 4 Ors.) claiming that they were entitled for such regularisation in preference to the respondents. The writ petition was decided under judgment and order dated 20th December, 2004 requiring the State-authorities to decide the representations made by the petitioners. The representations made on 6th January, 2005 by registered post, were received in the office of competent authority, namely, Director, Government Press, Allahabad. The representations were finally decided vide order dated 24th February, 2005 passed by the Deputy Director, Government Press, Allahabad, the same was communicated to the petitioners vide letter of the Joint Director, Government Press, Allahabad vide letter dated 25th February, 2005. The petitioners thereafter on 18th March, 2005 through their Counsel, made another representation before respondent No. 4 for compliance of the order of this Court dated 20th December, 2004. Thereafter petitioners initiated contempt proceedings before this Court being Contempt Petition No. 1676 of 2005, which accordingly to the petitioners is pending consideration before this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Tandon - Full Document

Babu Ram Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 27 April, 1953

In May 1950, this Court in the case of --'Moti Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh', AIR 1951 All 257 (FB) (A) commented adversely on the practice of the Transport Authorities in issuing only temporary permits, and as a consequence of the judgment in that case the Motor Vehicles Department invited the holders of temporary permits to apply for permanent permits. The petitioner did so, and on 30-9-1950, his application was published in the official gazette in accordance with the provisions of Section 57, Motor Vehicles Act. No objection to the application having been lodged, the petitioner was granted a permanent permit on 13-12-1950. The permit was numbered 133 and was declared to be valid up to 13-12-1953.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Makhan Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 16 August, 1950

In a case of this nature, a number of questions of law arise but in this particular case it is not necessary to discuss any of these questions because they have all been decided already by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Moti Lal v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Civ. Misc. Nos. 4 to 100, 103 to 140, 142 to 154, 156 to 168 and 170 to 176 of 1950, in which judgment was delivered by the Full Bench on 11-5-1960. It is to be noted that the judgment of the Full Bench was delivered on the very day on which these twelve applications were moved by the applicants. The judgment of the Fall Bench shows that, prior to the decision of those cases, the interpretation which was being put by the Regional Transport Authority and the Government on the existing laws was that they had the right to stop private owners from running stage carriages on a route on which the Government might desire to run state buses on a monopoly system. It was as a decision of the Full Bench that it was made clear that, unless a valid law was passed authorising the Government to run state buses on a monopoly basis and permitting it to stop private owners from running their stage carriages, it was illegal for the Regional Transport Authority to refuse permits to private persons simply in the interest of the Roadways run by the State, During the hearing of the case before the Full Bench, an undertaking had been given by the Advocate General on behalf of the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as on behalf of the Regional Authority that all applications for permits presented by the applicants whose cases were before the Full Bench, would be dealt with in accordance with law by those authorities. This undertaking was given some time about the end of the third week of April 1950. The undertaking does not strictly apply to cases of these twelve applicants who are before us but it is also clear that, when the undertaking was given, it was fully understood by those who were represented by the learned Advocate-General that it was incumbent on them to consider all applications for renewal or grant of permits in accordance with law laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and it was not open to them to reject these applications merely because the State wanted to run Government Roadways on any particular route. This point was further clarified by the Full Bench in its judgment which was delivered on 11-5-1950. It was to be expected, after the undertaking was given and at the latest, after the judgment of the Full Bench, that the Regional Transport, while dealing with the case of these twelve applicants, would also proceed on the same principles.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next