Allahabad Court April 1997 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.
Prof. M. Wajid Khan Vs. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registra ... Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC2172
Palok Basu, J.1. Viewed from any angle the only question in these two writ petitions is whether inter se seniority of Professor or Reader in the Aligarh Muslim University (A.M.U.) appointed, directly in the cadre or promoted under the merit promotion scheme personal promotion scheme (A.P.S., P.P.S.) has to be determined on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal, (1995) 1 SCC page 614, or Dr. Rashmi Srivastava, (1995) 3 SCC page 653, or Dr. Suman Agarwal, (1996) 1 SCC page 632 or, can it claim to remain out of the purview of any of these three decisions.2. Professor M. Wajid Khan prays that seniority list dated 18-1-1996 relating to Botany Department In Aligarh University be quashed in so far as it determines the inter se seniority of cadre Professors and M.P.S. Professors on uniform basis and the A.M.U. be commanded to re-determine the inter se seniority in accordance with law and further opposite party No. 5 Prof. Wazahat Husain be removed fro...
Heera Ram Maurya and anr. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC475
D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.1. Admit.2. With consent of the learned Counsel for parties, the case has been heard for final disposal.3. Heard Sri Ashok Khare for the appellants, Sri N.C. Rajvanshi for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.4. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants can be said to have been permanently absorbed in the service of the UP. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. respondent No. 1 (for short, the Corporation). The answer to this question depends on interpretation of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Rules).5. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciation of the issue raised in the case may be stated thus:6. The two appellants Heera Ram Maura and Jagdish Lal and one Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav were appointed as Junior Engineers in the Pub...
Ram Swaroop Upadhyay Vs. Director of Education and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ337All
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated September 12, 1989 and October 19, 1989 Annexures 7 and 11 to the writ petition and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's gratuity, provident fund etc. 2. I have heard Sri R.N. Bhalla for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Singh for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was a Principal of D.B. Santosh Singh Khalsa Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pratappura, Agra. He was appointed in 1972. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition that the Management wanted to harass the teachers and wanted to get the institution declared as a minority institution. Hence the Management applied to the Government for declaring it to be a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. The teachers of the institution filed objection before the D.I.O.S. but the State Government declared the institution as a minority institution vide order dated September 12, 1989 Annexure 7 to the writ p...
Dina Nath Singh Vs. Paras Nath Mishra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All416
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-11-96 passed by the District Judge. Ballia, in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1996 whereby the District Judge had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31-5-96 recorded by the civil Judge (Senior Division). Ballia. in Suit No. 94 of 1993.2. The suit in question was filed by Paras NathMishra, respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. He had instituted the suit for a declaration that an action sale of the suit property dated 3-5-89 and its subsequent confirmation dated 13-6-89 and the sale certificate dated 21 -5-93 were illegal and void. He made a prayer for a further declaration that the aforesaid sale had not conferred any right on the defendant. Accordingly the plaintiff prayed for an injunction so that the defendant No. 5 (present appellant) may not disturb the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid auction sale. It was his case that he purchased the suit property by registered sale deed from the de...
Vidya Dhar Dubey and ors. Vs. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997ACJ1388
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the above two appeals arising out of order dated 18.2.1983 passed by Mr. Sangam Lal Tripathi, District Judge, Jaunpur acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition Nos. 32 and 39 of 1979. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim petitions. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 of 1979, the deceased was Gayatri Devi. She was widow and issueless. She was the aunt of the claimants. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 39 of 1979, the deceased was Sankatha Prasad, and Amardevi claimant-appellant is sister of deceased's maternal uncle. As mentioned in the grounds of appeal, they have alleged that they are themselves to be the dependants of the deceased. Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act (13 of 1855) under which only the legal heirs of the deceased- parents, wife and son, can claim the compensation.2. The unfortunate accident took place on 8.2.1978 in which so many persons had died and 30 wer...
Smt. Guddi Wife of Keshav Das Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All396; (1997)2UPLBEC872
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, C.J. 1. On a reference made by a learned single Judge to place the matter before a larger Bench to decide the controversy, this case has been placed before us for deciding the questions formulated in the reference order.The following question have been formulated for decision:'1. Whether three Judges Special Bench decision in Board of Revenue v. Mulkhraj 1984 all LJ 321 (SB) has correctly construed the Supreme Court decisions, in Anand Bahera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17 and in Tarkeshwars Sio Thakur Jiu v. B.D.Dey and Company.Air 1979 SC 1669? 2. Whether the right, created under instrument in question, of catching the fish, in favour of the petitioner from Pachaura Tank reservoir for a period of five years on payment of premium is a lease within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Act, chargeable to stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to hereinbefore or it i...
Surendra Kumar Rai Vs. Zilla Parishad, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All387; (1997)2UPLBEC1106
ORDERR.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by same petitioner against Zilla Parishad, Jhansi and most of questins of fact and law involved are common.Thus both writ petitions can be decided by a common order against which parties have also to objection.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23803 of 1990 shall be the leading case.2. The fact, in brief, giving rise to Writ Petition No. 23803 of 1990 are that auction for grant of licence to realise and collect fee and tolls on vehicles entering Zilla Parishad territory and using Bus Adda for the period 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989 took place in which, bid of petitioners for Rs. 1,75,000/- being highest was accepted.In pursuance of which the licence was issued in favour of petitioner which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.Out of the total bid money, petitioner paid Rs. 1,05,000/- However, he failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000.In spite of the several demands the amount was not paid, a recovery...
Praveen Kumar Singh Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Deoria Through Its Chair ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All13
B.M. Lal, J. 1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and stay.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to hold auction for granting the contract of Tahbazari rights of Nai Basti Sabjimandi, Deoria for the year 1997-98 rather to allow the petitioner to work the said contract on deposit of Rs. 3,11,779.50 p. for the same.3. It appears that for the year 1994-95 said contract was granted to the petitioner, through auction for an amount of Rs. 2,05,000/-. Thereafter he succeeded ir getting a letter dt. 23-3-1995 issued from Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh to the effect that if the said contract is given to the petitioned for 3 years on increases of 15% per year from the respective preceding years, the Government has no objection. Accordingly for the year 1995-96 said contract was granted to the petitioner on an in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›