Allahabad Court October 1998 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.
Rajesh Singh and Others Vs. Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya, Jaunpur and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC404
O.P. Garg, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions filed separately by Rajesh Singh. Anil Kumar Gupta and Hausila Prasad Yadav who admittedly had appeared in the entrance examination test for admission to B.Ed, course for the session 1996-97 conducted by Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The result of the entrance test was declared and published on 17.11.1996. The Registrar of the University issued letters to the petitioners in November/December. 1996 directing them to report before the Principal. Sant Kinaram Post Graduate College, Kaimoor Pecth. Robertsganj, Sonebhadra for admission to the B.Ed, course after depositing the required fees. All the three petitioners accordingly reported and after depositing the requisite fee joined the classes on different dates in December, 1996, Subsequently, the admissions of the three petitioners and one Sant Lal Yadav were cancelled by the Registrar of theUniversity who communicated his decision by letter dated 24th January, 1997 to the Princip...
Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Nath and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC535
O.P. Garg, J.1. This is plaintiffs Second Appeal arising out of Suit No. 290 of 1997 which was instituted for the reliefs (1) cancellation of the sale deed dated 8.2.1996 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi-defendant No. 3. Radhey Shyam and Santosh Kumar, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Kameshwar Nath-defendant No. 4 ; (2) for cancellation of the gift deed dated 24.8.1967 executed by Kameshwar Nath defendant No. 4 in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar-defendant No. 5 and, (3) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed grove existing in plot Nos. 906M, area 0.533 acres and 906-M area .35 acres, total .68 acres, situate in village Bailjery of Tahsil Kashipur, in district Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar).2. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court on 16.8.1975. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal (No. 72 of 1975) which was allowed reversing the decree passed by the trial cour...
Jai NaraIn Rai Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC325
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 20.4.1993. the petitioner was put under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. From the said order, it appears that the order of suspension was issued in exercise of the powers under Rule 17 (1) (a), (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. 1991. Except mentioning about lodging of a first information report under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 304, I.P.C.. no further details have been mentioned. In the said order of suspension, it was directed that a preliminary enquiry be completed.Subsequently preliminary enquiry was held, in which it was found that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was on duty and, therefore, the question of keeping him under suspension should be reconsidered and the suspension be revoked. But the said suggestion was disagreed to by one R. S. Lal. A.S.I. (M), on the basis thereof, another report was submitted by A.P.O. on 25th May, 1993,...
Ramesh Chandra Chanchal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC626
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the State Government dated 24.6.1998 Annexure-5 to the writ petition passed under Section 48 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Firozabad and took oath of his office on 2.12.1995. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 3 is an M.L.A. from district Firozabad and is at present Forest Minister, U. P. Government and is also State President of Samta Party which is allied to the B.J.P. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 has been criticising the petitioner and making false allegations against him. He also fielded a candidate against the petitioner for the post of President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Firozabad, who lost. It is alleged in paragraph 5 that the respondent No. 3 has always wanted to somehow throw out the petitioner from his office.3. In parag...
District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1656All
S.C. Verma, J. 1. Assailing the award of the Labour Court dated August 28, 1981, the petitioner have alleged that the appointment of the workmen was time bound and after expiry of the tenure of appointment, temporary services automatically came to an end. The respondents workmen cannot claim the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the provision of retrenchment as such does not apply in those cases where the appointment itself was time bound. It has also been alleged that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was not necessary to have taken the approval or sanction of the Labour Court as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for termination of the services of respondents workmen. 2. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Suresh Chandand Anr., (1978-II-LLJ-1)(SC). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 4. No one has appeared...
Mihir Banerji Vs. Lallu Lal Kushwaha and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC407
M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner is challenging the election of Up Nagar Pramukh. Nagar Nigam. Allahabad. Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, provides for an election petition by an unsuccessful candidate or by a candidate whose nomination paper has been rejected or by a member of the Corporation.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he does not belong to any one of the categories mentioned in Section 61, he cannot file an election petition. That may be correct, but, in ouropinion, an election can only be challenged by the persons mentioned in, and in the manner provided in Section 61. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it will logically follow that even the election of the President of India or a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly may be challenged by filing ...
Smt. Sushila Bhatnagar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC486; (1998)3UPLBEC2214
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 15.7.1994, it was pointed out that in case no counter-affidavit is filed within the time so granted by the said order, the matter will be decided on the basis of the averments made inthe writ petition. Thereafter, by another order dated 24.2.1997, the respondents were directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in respect of his retirement benefits while directing the matter to be listed after three months.2. At this stage, Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel prays for further time to file counter-affidavit. According to him, without such counter-affidavit, it is not possible for him to throw any light on the facts of this case.3. Mr. Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner had retired on 30.6.1979 and since then she is suffering on account of non-payment of her retirement benefits.4. I have heard both the learned counsels at length.5. Retirement benefits is not a bounty payable on th...
Naresh Narain, Johri Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC544; (1999)1UPLBEC601
D.K. Seth, J.1. Smt. Maya Johri wife of the petitioner died on 26.5.1989 while she was in service. The petitioner by means of this petition had claimed that amount of pension, gratuity amount, group Insurance and General Provident Fund linked Insurance have not been paid to him. He also claims that the wife of the petitioner should have been granted selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. In the writ petition, no case has been madeout as to how the deceased was eligible to selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1983. Therefore, such a claim cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition in absence or any material.2. Mr. J. K. Tiwari, holding the brief of Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the G.P.F. amount has been paid to him, but the gratuity, amount of group insurance and G.P.F. linked Insurance has not been paid. In the counter-affidavit, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it is contended that ...
Maya Foods and Vanaspati Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC636
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 14.11.94 passed by the respondent No. 1. I.e.. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P., whereby it partly allowed the Stamp Revision No. 294 of 1994-95 and remanded the proceedings to the District Stamp Officer for redetermination of the market value of the land.2. 1 have heard Sri Sankatha Rai. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjlv Slngh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner M/s. Maya Foods and Vanaspatl Limited purchased land situate in Fatehpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh by three sale deeds dated 8.1.93, 11.1.93 and 13.1.93. The sale deeds were registered at Delhi as the Registration at Delhi was permitted by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, The Registrar, Delhi in compliance with the provisions contained in Section 167 of the Registration Act, forwarded the copies of the sale deeds to the Registr...
Prag Vanaspati Products Vs. Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh and An ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC633; [1999(81)FLR1]
M. C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an order dated 30.12.1994, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, declined to register a settlement for industrial dispute in terms of Section 6B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the said respondent and the other respondents, who are workmen to register the alleged settlement.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri DInesh Dwivedi and Sri K. P. Agarwal. Senior Advocate for the respondents and also the learned standing counsel.3. The petitioner's Industry named 'Prag Vanaspati Products' was afflicted with labour problems and it ultimately declared a lock-out from 30.11.1991. The State Government by its order dated 16.6.1992 prohibited the lock-out in the Company for a period of 180 days. The petitioner challenged the said order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »