Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: amalgamation Page 1 of about 11,095 results (0.008 seconds)

Dec 17 1971 (HC)

Nirmal Dass Khaturia and ors. Vs. the State Transport (Appellate) Trib ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1972All200

..... the letters patent and the oudh courts act are no longer operative provisions, they can be referred to only for the purpose of construing or giving effect to the amalgamation order. the amalgamation order contains the operative provisions. the letters patent and the oudh courts act have now passed into history.44. the submission that two high courts are created in the ..... it came into force but also to jurisdiction whichcould be conferred on the high court in the future even though not within the possible contemplation of those who framed the amalgamation order. the ambit and extent of jurisdiction in the high court is necessarily open to change and variation. existing jurisdiction can be curtailed, it can also be enlarged. ..... thus impairing the reputation of the judicial system, and, therefore, endangering its effectiveness. whether a case should be heard at lucknow or at allahabad has been advisedly left by the amalgamation order to responsible authority and not to the litigant. all cases from the specified oudh areas are intended to be heard at lucknow. any variation or exception to that rule ..... institution by the party and its being entertained by the court. all that is comprehended with the expression 'heard' in the second proviso. it must not be forgottenthat the amalgamation order is an organic instrument constituting a judicial authority of superior jurisdiction and, therefore, its provisions must be construed liberally and not in any narrow and pedantic sense. in british .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1959 (HC)

Boodan Vs. Asstt. Custodian General, Evacuee Property and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1959All722

..... was the place of culmination of that dispute because it was at allahabad that the excise commissioner made its ultimate order.7. clause 14 of the amalgamation order did not in any manner affect either by curtailment or in any other way the jurisdiction which was conferred on a high court. one has ..... 'case' and therefore he contended that even if clause 14 of the amalgamation order was valid even so it could not affect writ petitions and that writ petitions could be filed at the pleasure of the litigant at any of ..... on high courts under article 226 of the constitution.5. the next contention of mr. dhaon was that the word 'case' in clause 14 of the amalgamation order did not refer and it could not refer to writ applications, which according to mr. dhaon were something different and outside the connotations, of the word ..... to saving that a part of the jurisdiction exercised by this court -- and a very important part at that -- was being exercised independently of the amalgamation order, which as i have shown above was the parent or creator of the new high court. this court existed as a high court at the ..... writ petition had arisen did not 'arise within the area' over which the lucknow bench could exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of clause 14 of the amalgamation order. it was pointed in this connection that the plots of land in respect of which bhumidhari rights were claimed and in respeet of which the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1976 (HC)

Ram Lakhan Saran Vs. the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P., Lucknow an ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1976All532

..... july, 1948, were obviously passed without jurisdiction, hence were bad and invalid.38. it was also urged that under para. 14 of the amalgamation order the chief justice could not direct that the judges sitting at lucknow shall exercise their jurisdiction in cases arising in the 'whole area of ..... and even subsequent orders whenever he deemed it fit and proper. so he misapprehended his power to modify or amend, a power which the amalgamation order did not confer on him. this misapprehension could have the effect of vitiating the subsequent orders but not the original order which was ..... it was submitted by mr. khare that the relevant considerations were to be ascertained from the policy of paras. 7 and 14 of the amalgamation order and that the relevant consideration was the abolition of lucknow bench. this contention, in my view, is meritless and stands concluded by the ..... bench were void inasmuch as the said orders were passed under misconception of the scope of his powers under the said para. 14 of the amalgamation order, and that the impugned orders were passed without taking into account the relevant considerations and excluding the irrelevant considerations. the argument, in substance ..... 1948, the chief justice passed another order reading as follows :--'in exercise of the powers conferred by article 14 of the united provinces' high courts (amalgamation) order, 1948 and in partial modification of the court's notification no. 6103 dated july 26, 1948, the chief justice of the high court .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1974 (HC)

G.N. Verma Vs. Hargovind Dayal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1975All52

..... ofjustice' and, therefore, anything saidabout the chief justice in that capacityshould not amount to contempt. theargument appears to be too technical. itcan very well be accepted that the amalgamation order related to constitutionand organisation of high courts. it cannot, however, be denied that when thechief justice acts under clause 14 of theamalgamation order, that act is directlyconnected ..... justice actsunder clause 14 of the amalgamation order,he does not act in the administration ofjustice. according to learned counsel theact of the chief justice in issuing thenotification under clause 14 relates to'constitution ..... since constitution and organisationof high courts fall under item 78 of theunion list and 'administration of justice' falls under item 3 of the state listand since the amalgamation order hadbeen passed by the central government,it should be held that it related to 'constitution and organisation of courts'.learned counsel further contended thattherefore when the chief ..... the supreme court they could not successfully take the stand that since the chief justice acted in his administrative capacity while issuing notifications under clause 14 of the amalgamation order, anything said about him in that capacity would not constitute contempt. they have, therefore, modified their stand to say that the chief justice acts in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1958 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Chheda Lal Ram Autar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1958All652

..... cases.20. the contention is not easy to accept and in putting it forward learned counsel appears to have ignored not only the purpose of the amalgamation but also the provisions of artcile 214 of the constitution. before 1948 the chief court of oudh constituted the highest court of appeal for that area ..... the same powers as the benches of the high court at allahabad so far as the question of pure jurisdiction is concerned.15. article 14 of the amalgamation order has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction. it deals only with the place of sitting of the new high court, its judges and ..... jurisdiction of the new high court by the name of the high court of judicature at allahabad constituted under art 3 of the unit-ed provinces high courts (amalgamation) order,1948, is laid down by artcile 7 thereof which reads thus:'7(1). the new high court shall have, in respect of the whole of ..... and that the present application must be dismissed.3. the answer to the question we have to consider turns upon the interpretation of clause 14 ef the amalgamation older. that clause provides that the high court, and the judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at allahabad or at such other place in the ..... is an area in oudh over which a bench of this court sitting at lucknow exercises, by virtue of clause 14 of the united provinces high courts (amalgamation) order, 1948, and a direction made by the chief justice thereunder, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the high court, and in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1977 (HC)

Bhuwal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1977All488

..... exercised by them before the constitution came into force. therefore, it is said the judges at lucknow enjoy no greater power than they did when they first sat under the amalgamation order. the contention, in our opinion, 'ignores important and fundamental consideration.......... the first proviso to article 14 employs the expression 'for the time being' and it appears to us ..... . as far as the first question is concerned, sri s. p. gupta counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the united provinces high courts (amalgamation) order, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the order, is consistent (sic) (inconsistent?) with articles 214, 226, 227 and 228 of the constitution and also the general scheme of the ..... court in nirmal dass khaturia v. state transport (appellate) tribunal u. p. lucknow (air 1972 all 200 (fb)), referred to the various provisions of the united provinces high courts (amalgamation) order 1948 as 'clauses' but the supreme court in nasiruddin v. state transport appellate tribunal (air 1976 sc 331), preferred to describe them as 'paragraphs'. we shall also consequently refer ..... -1-1950? 2. whether the jurisdiction and power of the allahabad high court, conferred on the judges sitting at lucknow under clause 14 of the u. p. high courts (amalgamation) order, 1948, include the jurisdiction and power under article 226 of the constitution ?since the constitutionality of an order issued by the governor general was in question, notice was issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1997 (HC)

M/S. Sumac International Ltd. Vs. M/S. Pnb Capital Services Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1997All424; [1998]93CompCas236(All)

..... stated that the conclusion third in paragraph 37 of nasiruddin's case dealt with an assumed order under second proviso to paragraph 14 of the amalgamation order. however, we have already found earlier that order dated 15-7-1949has been passed under the first proviso in partial modification of the ..... not repeat the same in this judgment. however, as the issue involved in the present appeal is about the interpretation of para 14 of amalgamation order and the notification dated 26-7-1948 and 15-7-1949, it shall be relevant to reproduce them here for convenience and better appreciation ..... new high court of judicature at allahabad created by the amalgamation order could not be prejudiced or affecicd with regard to the jurisdiction conferred under the companies act. learned counsel has placed reliance on s. ..... . the notification is legaland valid, and docs not suffer from want of authority. learned counsel has further submitted that under para. 18 of the amalgamation order, application of ihc laws enacted subsequent to it has been saved. the company act was enacted by parliament in 1956. the jurisdiction of the ..... be at allahabad, the notification would be beyond the powers conferred on the chief justice under the second proviso to para. 14 of the amalgamation order and consequently it shall be invalid. it has also been submitted that as notification dated 15-7-1949 modifies partially the notification dated 26 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1960 (HC)

Sir Iqbal Ahmad, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court Vs. the Hon'ble the Ch ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1962All391

..... . he was refused permission. he filed an appeal before ithe erstwhile federal court of india but without success.28. though the two courts were amalgamated both the bar councils i. e. the one functioning at lucknow under the late oudh chief court and the either functioning at allahabad under the ..... act itself, thus, treated a high court constituted by amalgamation as a new high court, and consequently, the indian bar councils act which had been made applicable only to the erstwhile high court at allahabad ..... the government of india act, as amended npto the time when the order was made, power was conferred on the governor-general to reconstitute or amalgamate high courts and in the latter portions of that section such new courts were described as reconstituted courts or new high courts. the government of india ..... subsequent orders of the chief justice dated the 14th december, 1948, and 15th july, 1949, the right of the petitioner which existed after the amalgamation of the two erstwhile high courts because of his having been brought on the roll of advocates of the chief court in oudh had been curtailed ..... , to the following effect :'the chief justice is pleased to direct that ex-judges of the high court of judicature at allahabad before its amalgamation with the chief court who gave an undertaking not to practise within the jurisdiction of that court shall not appear before the benches of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2004 (SC)

Government of Orissa Vs. Ashok Transport Agency and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2005(1)AWC396(SC); [2005]123CompCas226(SC); (2005)3CompLJ10(SC); [2005(2)JCR281(SC)]; JT2004(10)SC599; 2004(9)SCALE384; (2005)1SCC536

..... plaintiff to have brought on record the corporation and the state government before proceeding with its suit and the search for a decree in its favour. the terms of the amalgamation order has not been properly appreciated by the executing court and the high court when they allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the execution as against the corporation and as ..... or be any way prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer to the resulting company, the corporation, of the undertaking of the dissolved company or of anything contained in the amalgamation order. but it was specifically provided that the suit, prosecution, appeal or other legal proceeding may be continued, prosecuted and enforced against the resulting company, namely, the corporation, in the ..... defendant who was represented by counsel and who had filed a written statement in the suit, did not bring to the notice of the court that the defendant had got amalgamated with the corporation, that it stood dissolved and that it was necessary to implead the corporation before proceeding further with the suit. the plaintiff also did not take any steps ..... the defendant with the orissa mining corporation limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'], a government of orissa company incorporated under the companies act. in addition to providing for the amalgamation of the two companies and for transfer of all rights and properties of the defendant and the vesting of the same in the corporation in accordance with law, by clause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1970 (HC)

Uma Shankar Hari Nandan Ahir Vs. the State

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1971All96; 1971CriLJ354

..... oudh. the question that requires consideration is what does the expression 'arising in..........oudh' mean. the word 'arising' has also not been defined in the amalgamation order or in the general clauses act. it is not a term of art. the dictionary meaning of the word 'arise' amongst others is 'to ..... clear intention of the legislature seems to be that the litigant public of lucknow and the advocate practising there should not be inconvenienced by the amalgamation order depriving them of the ever standing facility of having their cases decided at lucknow, a privilege which they enjoyed by virtue of the existence ..... interpretation would militate against the provisions of article 214 of the constitution which provides that there shall be one high court in a state the amalgamation order was passed before the present constitution was enforced or even framed. it was passed in the background of there being two high courts in ..... oudh could be heard at lucknow, and as to what does the expression 'cases arising in ......... oudh' mean.7. clause 14 of the amalgamation order provides that the new high court and the judges and division courts thereof shall sit at allahabad or at such other places in the united ..... as oudh, to the exclusion of the allahabad high court. the allahabad high court exercised jurisdiction over the rest of the province.6. the amalgamation order was passed and enforced because it was thought fit that there should not be two high courts in the same province. two questions are .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //