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.
Mathuresh Chand Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal-iii, Lucknow and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC310; [1999(81)FLR322]
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri A. C. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Upadhyaya. learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 and Sri S. G. Husnain. learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. at length and in detail.2. Order and judgment dated 11th September, 1986 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. III, Lucknow. the respondent No. 1, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. By the impugned order and Judgment dated 29th February, 1980 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Pound-Keeper has been upheld.4. The order dated 29th February, 1980 indicates that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were no longer required and as such his services were terminated with effect from 31st April, 1980 on one month's notice.5. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was and before this Court is that he was n...
Sarvar Ali Vs. Municipal Board, Marhara, Etah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC403
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Dhan Prakash. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarad Sharma,holding brief of Sri H. N. Sharma. the learned counsel of the respondent.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly retired from service w.e.f. 31st December. 1989 on the basis of his recorded date of birth i.e., 1st January. 1930.3. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 7th July, 1933. He asserts that 1st January. 1930 was wrongly entered in the new service book, which had to be prepared on account of the loss of the original.4. Thus, the question for consideration is what is the actual date of birth of the petitioner? Is it 1st January, 1930 or 7th July. 1933?5. It is not disputed that the petitioner has passed High School Examination and was Issued requisite Certificate. According to him in the certificate his date of birth is recorded as 7th July. 1933. But. the certificate is not available as the same was deposited with the respondent at the time of entry...
Km. Rohini Singh Vs. Visitor, B.H.U., President of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC387
O.P. Garg, J.1. The petitioner Km. Rohini Singh appeared in the entrance test for admission to M.Ed. course 1997-98 conducted by Banaras Hindu University (for short 'B.H.U.'). On 8.9.1997 a letter was received by her from the Faculty of Education, B.H.U. to present herself with certain documents for verification and confirmation of admission. On 12.9.1997, she submitted required documents and on verification, she was admitted. A fee of Rs. 223 which was meant for B.H.U. students was accepted from her. In this manner, she was admitted to M.Ed., course 1997-98. When she was pursuing her studies in the said course, a letter dated 15.9.1997 was received by the father of the petitioner, which indicated that her admission to M.Ed, course has been cancelled. It was alleged that the impugned order dated 15.9.1997 was passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner therefore, made a representation to the Visitor the Hon'ble President of india, New Delhi disclosing all the...
Prafulla Singh Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Educatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC531
O.P. Garg, J.1. The petitionerappeared in IntermediateExamination of 1996 as privatecandidate. His result has beencancelled by order dated 16thSeptember, 1997, Annexure-2 to thewrit petition by respondent No. 1 onthe ground that on 2,4.1996 when hewas appearing in Maths IIIrd paperat National Graniodyogic HigherSecondary School. Sarai Vanshi.Allahabad, the Flying Squad seizedtwo hand written papers from hispossession and the said act of thepetitioner was against the provisionsof Regulation 2 (1) of Chapter VI ofthe Board's calender for which anexplanation of the petitioner wascalled for. The petitioner denied theallegations made against him andmaintained that the seized writtenpapers were not in his hand writingand that the Flying Squad hadcollected them from behind the seatof the petitioner and that on meresuspicion, his answer book waschecked but nothing objectionablewas found from his possession.2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,...
Abid Ali (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC841
S.H.A. Baza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply of the question as to whether the constructions raised by a tenant which has not reduced the utility of the premises can be a ground for eviction in a suit filed by the landlord.2. Section 20 (2) (c) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provided that if the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such constructions or constructed or made structural alteration in the building, as is 'likely to diminish its value or utility or it disfigures', a Suit for eviction can be filed on that ground. The words 'likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure' are of paramount importance, meaning thereby, that a structural alteration in the building in the tenancy, within the meaning of the aforesaid provision, should be as such which has diminished the value or utility or disfiguring of the accommodation under the tenancy of a tenant, cannot be a ground for eviction, if s...
Ram Krishna Jaiswal and Others Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC309
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioners' counsel.2. This is tenant's writ petition filed against the order dated 26.9.98 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court postponing the disposal of petitioners' application for returning the suit for presentation before the appropriate court under the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The trial court has opined that it would be just and proper to decide the said application at the time of final hearing.3. It is well-established law that exercise of power under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is discretionary. This section does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes from trying suits involving question of title to immovable property, if that question is involved incidently. After the amendment in Article (4) of the Act in the Second Schedule. Courts of Small Causes are the only competent Courts to try suits relating to eviction of tenants after determination of lease. The only issue in suc...
Zubeda Khatoon Vs. Viith Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC804
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply of thequestion as to whether the constructions raised by a tenant which has not reduced the utility of the premises can be a ground for eviction in a suit filed by the landlord.2. Section 20 (2) (c) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provided that if the tenant has, without the permission in writing of the landlord, made or permitted to be 'made any such constructions or constructed or made structural alteration in the building, as is likely to diminish its value or utility or it disfigures, a suit for eviction can be filed on that ground. The words 'like to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure' are of paramount importance meaning thereby that a structural alteration in the building in the tenancy within the meaning of the aforesaid provision, should be as such which has diminished the value or utility or disfiguring of the accommodation under the tenancy of a tenant, cannot be a ground for eviction if such stru...
Smt. Surinder Kaur Vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC773
S.R. Singh, J.1. Present petition and connected Writ Petition No. 20151 of 1998 enwomb challenge to recovery of excise dues amounting to Rs. 1,52,65,232 sought to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Recovery certificates dated 26.5.97 which are phrased in identical words have been issued by the Collector, Fatehpur to Collector, Allahabad, for recovery of the afore stated amount with interest accruing on the amount at the rate of 18% with effect from 1.4.1994 from the petitioners, who were believed to be stationed at Allahabad and to be owning property consisting of movable and immovables at Allahabad. Since both the petitions stem from the same cause of action and are founded on common questions of law and fact, we knit them together for convenient disposal by a common Judgment.2. The telescopic view of the necessary facts is that for the year 1993-94 a public auction was to be held on 30.3.1993 for grant of licence for retail vend of country liquor in the dist...
Paras Nath Upadhyay Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1293; (1999)1UPLBEC205
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 27.10.1993 in Writ Petition No. 863 of 1991. The appellant, by means of the above noted writ petition, had challenged the order of his removal from service. The writ petition failed.2. The appellant was appointed as librarian in the Triloknath Postgraduate College, Tanda, Faizabad in 1977. On account of some charges of misconduct, the appellant was suspended in January, 1988. Charge-sheet was served and enquiry was entrusted to an enquiry committee who submitted its report on September 9, 1988. The Committee of Management by means of a resolution dated 11.6.1989, while accepting the enquiry report, resolved to terminate the services of the appellant and referred the matter to the D.I.O.S. for approval. The D.I.O.S accorded approval to the resolution. The removal order was issued on 5.1.1991 and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 21.1.1991. The...
N.N. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Khatema Fibres Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas254(All)
A.K. Banerji, J.1. By means of the above noted company petition filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, in short) the petitioner M/s. N. N. Consultants Private Limited (the petitioner, in short) have sought the winding up of the company M/s. Khatema Fibres Limited (formerly known as Khatema Paper and Board Mills Limited) (the respondent-company, in short) on the ground that the respondent-company is indebted to the petitioner and has not paid its dues despite service of statutory notice ; hence the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt and should be ordered to be wound up.2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that on the request of the respondent-company the petitioner gave a short-term loan of Rs. 4,75,000 in the month of April, 1989, which was payable on February 28, 1990, along with interest. The respondent did not pay the said amount or the interest due, hence the petitioner was constrained to serve a statut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »