Allahabad Court April 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Umendram Sahu Vs. Secretary, Examination Committee, Secretary, Technic ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All358
ORDERS. S. Sodhi, J.1. The matter here arises from the cancellation of the result of the, appellant on the ground that he had been found guilty of using unfair means in the examination.2. The charge against the appellant was that he was found in possession, during the examination, of material relevant to the subject of the examination.3. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that in terms of Section 13 of the U.P. Pradeshik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1962, the result of the examination could have been withheld only if the appellant had been found guilty of using unfair means in the examination. The arguments being that mere possession of incriminating material cannot be construed as using unfair means in the examination.4. While dealing with the contention raised, it would be relevant to advert to Regulation 53 of the Regulations framedunder Section 23 of the Act, the explanation whereof reads as under,'Using of unfair means includes possession of an unauthorised paper of any...
Pradeep Agarwal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All344
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. This bunch of six writ petitions raises a common question for consideration whether to take benefit of the compounded payment within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P- Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (briefly, 'the Act') it is necessary for the petitioners to declare four shows or the number of shows which the petitioners or some of them had organised as on 1-5-1989.2. All these petitions were heard together. As counter-affidavit was filed only in Writ Petition No. 834 of 1993, that was not sent for and was heard with the consent of the parties along with other writ petitions, which were already listed. The Counsel for the parties have agreed that the question being common in all these writ petitions, the counter-affi-davit filed in Writ Petition No. 834 of 1993 be read to decide all the writ petitions.3. No purpose will be served by reproducing the facts of each and every writ petition but it will suffice if the facts o...
Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. Through the Secretary, Loca ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All349
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. By these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners who are either Presidents or Chairmen of different local bodies in the State of Uttar Pradesh, pray for striking down the Ordinance known as U.P. Municipalities, Notified Areas and Town Areas (Alp-Kalik Vyava-stha) Adhyadesh 1994 being U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1994 promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers under Art. 213 of the Constitution as being unconstitutional, the relevant provisions of which are extracted below:'1; This Ordinance may be called the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities, Notified Areas and Town Areas (Alpkalik Vyavastha) Adhyadesh, 1994. 2. With effect from the 19th day of January, 1994, the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1916), hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act, shall until May 31, 1994 or until the Constitution of the Municipal Boards under the provision of the said Act, whichever is earlier, have e...
Godhan Son of Pola and Others Vs. Ram Bilas Son of Mahesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All357
ORDER1. This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 26-5-1984, passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1984 arising out of judgment and decree dated 25-2-1984, passed by Civil Judge, Sitapur in Regular Suit No. 117 of 1982 whereby the trial Court had decreed the plaintiff-respondent's claim in suit and First Appellate Court had also confirmed the said decree and judgment of the trial Court.2. The facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff-respondent Ram Bilas filed a suit against the defendants-appellants Godhan and 3 others for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in respect of agricultural plots Nos. 116 (area 1 bigha 13 biswan) 117 (area 2 biswa), 118 area 1 biswa),and plot No. 134 (area 4 bighas and 10 biswas 11 biswansi) situated in village Pooranpur, Pargana Bari, Tahsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur. According to the plaint case on 18-11-1983, the defendant No. 1 has entered into an agreement for sale of...
Prabhu NaraIn Rai and anr. Vs. Secretary-cum-general Manager, Dt. Coop ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ586All; (1994)3UPLBEC1714
1. In the context of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does it amount to retrenchment if after repeated ad hoc appointments for specified short spells with notional breaks, the period of service exceeds 240 days in the preceding 12 months and the workmen's services are thereafter terminated? Herein lies the controversy raised.2. Prabhu Narain Rai and Suresh Tewari were appointed as clerks on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days. The first of such appointment was made in September, 1983, On the expiry of this period, after a short break, another such fresh appointment was made and this continued till the year 1985, when their services were eventually terminated and they were given no further appointment. Admittedly by that time, both had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months. No retrenchment compensation had been paid to them. The issue thus, arises is whether they were entitled to retrenchment compensation? This in turn, being d...
U.P. State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Bhawani Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ241All
V. Bahuguna, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity and legality of the award of the Labour Court dated January 20, 1992 by means of which a reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has been decided in favour of the workman, respondent No. 1. The Labour Court has held that the termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. July 15, 1985 was unjustified as it was passed in violation of the principles of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was working since 1976 and was getting a salary of Rs. 135/- per month and on the date of his termination he was getting a salary of Rs. 540/- per month. As the respondent No. 1 had put in 240 days actual service, his services could not be terminated without paying him retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court has appraised the evidence on record and recorded a finding of fact th...
Motor Industries Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC490(All)
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The petitioners by means of the aforesaid writ petitions have prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition be issued against the opposite parties to forebear them from assessing, imposing or realising any sales tax from the petitioners in excess of 6 per cent on the turnover of fuel injection equipments. They have also prayed for the quashing of the order dated March 24, 1990, for the assessment year 1985-86 contained in annexure 3, in so far as it relates to the imposition of sales tax on the fuel injection equipments in excess of 6 per cent. They have also prayed for issuance of a writ prohibiting the opposite party No. 2 from assessing the petitioner for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91 on the turnover of fuel injection equipments in excess of 6 per cent, or realising any tax or making recovery of taxes in pursuance of the allotment order dated March 24, 1990, contained in annexure 3.2. In short the contention of the petitioner is that fuel in...
Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ603
ORDERI.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a bail application on behalf of Sri Om Pradash Dwivedi in Crime No. 1156 of 1993, under Sections 307/332 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Laws Amendment Act, P. S. Kotwali City, District Faizabad.2. The applicant is a practising Advocate in the outlying court at Akbarpur, district Faizabad, and the victim/complainant was the presiding Officer of the court at Faizabad. According to the prosecution the applicant had filed a revision which was for consideration before the Presiding Officer. He approached the Presiding Officer in his chamber for hearing his revision and at the time he was accompanied with two other lawyers. He insisted that his revision should be admitted on that very day and orders passed. The Presiding Officer (Sri Ojha) summoned the file through his Reader and went through it. He told the applicant that lawyers were on strike on that date and it may not be possible to take up the matter. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the applican...
Ram Das Vs. Badan Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All328
ORDERV.K. Khanna A.C.J.1. Petitioner-respondent was elected as Up Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Fatehullahpur, Block Sahpau, district Mathura in the year 1988. Proceedings were initiated for carrying out the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner-respondent and notice was issued on 6th April, 1993 fixing the meeting on 16-4-1993 for considering the motion of no-confidence. A writ petition was filed by the respondent in this Court challenging the notice on the ground that 15 days notice had not been given and thus the holding of the meeting was in clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The aforesaid writ petition was' allowed on 13-4-1993. However, it was held that it will be open to the respondents to fix another date and issue another notice under Section 14 of the Act in accordance with law. In view of the judgment of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition the notice dated 6-4-19...
Shri Ram Nath Yadav Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: AIR1994All398
ORDERV. K. Khanna, J.1. A learned single Judge while hearing the present writ petition has referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:'Whether the word 'family' used inS. 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should be interpreted with regard to its general meaning as it is understood commonly so as to include daughter-in-law or other female relations who are normally members of the family or it should be given the restricted meaning as defined in S. 3(g) of the Act.?' 2. For the purposes of answering the question which has been referred to us by the learned single Judge, it will be useful to have the relevant facts involved in the present writ petition out of which the reference arises.3. The petitioner in the present writ petition is admittedly the landlord of a shop situated in the city of Allahabad and had moved an application for its release under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinaf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›