Allahabad Court November 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.
Kiran Pal and Kanwar Pal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC470
S.R. Singh, J.1. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant petition is centred on two orders firstly the order dated 25.5.1998 passed by the State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow rejecting their application for renewal of Stage Carriage Permit, and secondly, the revisional order dated 31.8.1998, by which their revision No. 33 of 1998 preferred against the order dated 25.5.1998 came to be dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow.2. The facts draped in brevity and shorn of unnecessary details are that the Stale Transport Authority. U. P.. Lucknow (in short the S.T.A.'). released 26 Stage Carriage Permits by resolution/order dated 23.11.1992 including one Permit in favour of the petitioners to ply their vehicle on the route in question, namely, Meerut-Gangoh via Rohta-Barnava-Daha-Budhana-Shamit-Jhinjhana-Bidault (New Yamuna Bridge)-Basech, The order dated 23.11.1992 was taken up in challenge by Sheetal Prasad, Gajraj Singh and Ugrasen before the State...
Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC347
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.1989 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Junior Engineer by the respondent No. 1. Prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service with consequential benefits of salary, increments, seniority and promotion, etc. has also been made.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that it was on 28.10.1968 that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in Irrigation Department, U. P., Lucknow. During the period from June, 1969 to April, 1971, the petitioner was posted in Emergency Lift Irrigation Department, Allahabad at Lohra Pump Canal. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Public Service Commission in the ...
Harindra Singh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC368
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, whereby he declared the accommodation in question as vacant under the provisions of Section 12 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. Respondent No. 2 is landlady of the accommodation in question, it was let out to the petitioner by her in the year 1984. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 12 of the Act for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant alleging that the petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation in question on monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. He was transferred to Hindola district Tehri and on transfer, he has taken a residence at Chukuwala but he has got the disputed house locked. H was stated that the accommodation in question be declared as vacant and be released in her favour as she needed it bona fide for residential purpose. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated that the house in question was constructed in t...
Gulshan Lal Vs. Iiird Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC341
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. The present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21, of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short the Act. and is directed against the order dated 30.1.1997 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.11.1992 releasing the building in question (shop) was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority, the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.2. The relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that late Prabhu Dayal (landlord), filed an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the shop in dispute, for his personal use and occupation, on the ground of his bona fide and genuine need. The said application was registered as P. A. Case No. 47 of 1990. On the said application, notices were issued to the petitioner, who was in occupation of the said shop as a tenant. On receipt of the notices,...
Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]34CLA36(All); [1999]95CompCas615(All)
A.K. Banerji, J. 1. By means of the above-noted appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the Scientific Instruments Company ('the appellant', in short) has, inter alia, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated March 5, 1998, passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('the Board', in short), on the ground that the petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act', in short), was not maintainable. 2. The relevant facts in brief, as stated by the appellant, are that the appellant which is a public limited company, appointed A. M. I. Computers (I) Limited as its registrar to the public issue and a memorandum ofunderstanding (MOU) was executed on September 12, 1996, in respect thereof. Though the board of directors resolved on February 24, 1997, to appoint the firm, A. M. I. Computers (I) Limited ('AMI' in short), as its share transfer agent, however, the said resolution was not given effect to and no formal agreement or MOU wa...
Meena Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)1UPLBEC196
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. In this case on 1.5.1998 learned Standing Counsel was granted one month's time to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed so far. The petitioner has served respondent No. 5 personally and filed an affidavit of service but none has appeared.3. In the circumstances I am teaching the allegations in the petition to be correct.4. The petitioner had been appointed as a L.T. Grade teacher after advertising the post in well known newspapers, but the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the recommendation of the Committee of Management on the reasoning that the Committee of Management has no right to appoint teacher on a short term vacancy. In my opinion, this stand of the respondent is not correct. This Court in Sri Niwas Singh v. State of UP., (1998) 1 UPLBEC 276, following the decision of the Full Bench in Radha Baizada v. Committee of Management (1994) 1 UPLBEC 155, has hel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›