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.
Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC671; (1999)1UPLBEC396
B.K. Roy, A Chakrabarti and S.K. Phaujdar, JJ.1. Through this Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 54512 of 1998, filed on 1st September. 1998, review Js sought for of the judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 passed by a Full Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Binod Kumar Roy and S. K. Phaujdar, JJ.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. N. Tripathi, since retired, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1265 of 1996 (reported in 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1805), the operative part of which reads thus :'(i) The conversion of 13 posts of direct recruits, as available for promotion from Nyayik Sewa, is declared illegal and the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 2.11.1995 and the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in question in this regard are quashed. (ii) The appointees (respondent Nos. 3 to 15) will be deemed to be appointed on ad hoc basis only and not on substantive basis and that too till the final decision on this point to be taken by the Full Court. (iii) The Full Court is requeste...
Balram Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC673
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Nar Singh Dixit. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel, representing the respondents. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been awarded any compensation and damages in lieu of requisition of their land and damage done to the standing crop thereon under the provisions of U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act. 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).2. Where any land is requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act, there shall be paid to every person interested such compensation as may be agreed upon in writing between the person and the Requisitioning Authority in respect of the requisition of his land, and any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other thanthat which may have been sustained by natural causes. If no agreement, as is envisaged in Section 3 of the Act, is arrived at for such compensation, the Requisitioning Authority is obliged to refer the maile...
Smt. Prabha Bhatnagar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2426
B. Dikshit, J.1. The question which arise for determination in this petition is as to whether a Professor at Government Central Pedagogical Institute, Allahabad (in short 'Institute') belonging to Women's Branch and appointed under Rule 5 (4) of U. P. Educational Teaching (Subordinate Gazetted) Rules. 1993 (in short 'Subordinate Gazetted Service Rules') is entitled for the benefit so that her service may come to an end at the end of academic session on 30th June in view of Government Order No. 7022/15 (1)/83-31 (16)/77 dated 21.3.1934 read with Government Order No. 1239/19-93-31 (14)/95 dated 20.4.1995? The question has arisen as petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the month of October, 1998 when a notice dated 13.10.1998 was served on her by Principal of Institute to hand over charge on 31.10.1998 to another Professor on attaining the age of superannuation.2. The facts, in brief, relevant for determining present controversy are that petitioner was working as an Assistant ...
Sarvesh Chandra Shukla Vs. U.P. Higher Secondary Education Services Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC616
D.K. Seth, J.1. A punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner pursuant to the resolution dated 12th of October, 1991, which was approved by the Commission by its order dated 8th of June, 1995, communicated by communication dated 13th of June, 1995 being Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.2. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no enquiry report was ever shown to the petitioner neither any copy of the enquiry report was given to him. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohammad Ramjan Khan. 1991 (1) SCC 588, he contended that the order of punishment cannot be sustained. He further contended that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 14th of September. 1991. a report was forwarded to the Committee of Management by the Inquiry Committee on 20th of September. 1991 and the petitioner was asked to appear in the enquiry on 12th of October, 1...
Chhota Bhai Munnu Bhai and Co. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ956All
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. All these writ petitions are the subject matters of an enactment, entitled the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') At the very out set, it may be placed on record here that initially as the arguments were addressed, vehemently opposed on behalf of the State respondents, the thrust of the submissions were based on a decision of the Supreme Court in re: M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.. (1994-II-LLJ-724) (SC). The common action of the .State respondents which aggrieves the petitioners, is a notice, similar in content, issued to all of them, but individually. In effect, the notice calls upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for allegedly having employed a child for labour. The notice alleges violation of the Act. Simultaneously, the notice announces that the proceedings, that is to say, complaints, have been filed against the erring employers before, the Chief Judicial Magistrate allegin...
Shoobh Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC451
O.P. Garg, J.1. The validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947, whereby he has ordered for recounting of the votes, has come to be challenged in the present writ petition in the following circumstances.2. The election to the office ofPradhan of Gaon Sabha, Aazon.Block Sujangarh, Nyaya PanchayatAmau, district Jaunpur had takenplace, on 12,4.1995, in which besidesthe petitioner-Shobh Nath.respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Lalji,Basant Raj, Shiv Bahadur and AjayKumar were the congestingcandidates. The counting of the votestook place on 20.4.1995 in whichShobh Nath, petitioner was declaredto have been elected as Pradhanhaving secured 168 votes. His nearestcontesting rival candidate was Lalji-respondent No. 3. who polled 167votes. Lalji respondent No. 3 filed anelection petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Macchli Shahr.Jaunpur. The present petitioner hadfiled a written statement. By theimpugned order dated 23.10.1998...
Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. Shia Central Board of Waqfs, U.P and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC450
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Sri Dhruva Narayana for petitioner and learned standing counsel and Shri Haider Husain for respondents.2. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the Tribunalhad not yet been constituted although three years have expired since the passing of the Act. Hence we direct the State Government to constitute the Tribunal under Section 83 within three months from today positively. The petitioner may approach the Tribunal as soon as it is constituted and his application under Section 83(2) will be decided within three months thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. Till the disposal of the application, status quo regarding the property in dispute shall be maintained.4. Petition is disposed offinally....
Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC758
M. Katju, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various kinds of paper and pulps. It has its registered office in Bombay and its factory is in Maharashtra. In the course of business, the Petitioner Company entered Into contracts with the Government of Uttar Pradesh for supplying papers as required by the State Government. The petitioner has got itself registered with the Directorate of Industries. Uttar Pradesh vide Annexue-5 to the petition. The petitioner sells papers manufactured by it infer alia to the book publishers in U. P. who sell the prescribed textbooks for students. In this connection the State Government invited tenders for the printing of the prescribed books. True copy of the notice inviting tenders is Annexure-6 to the petition. The petitioner has contended that it has a right to be considered for supply of paper to the book publishers, but it has been Illegally exclud...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Presiding Offier, Labour Court, Meer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC762; [1999(81)FLR231]
Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 1. The award dated 5.11.1994 is the subject-matter of challenge here at the Instance of employer. A charge-sheet had been issued against the respondent No. 2 workman relating to claim of leave travel concession and upon completion of disciplinary proceeding by order dated 26.12.1975, the respondent No. 2 workman had been dismissed. The dispute having been referred to. the Labour Court decided the same by the impugned award.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner employer contended that in the impugned, award, there is no finding as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper although an issue to the said effect had been raised as additional Issue No. 3.3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the award had been given in favour of the workman solely on the ground that the charges levelled did not come within the provision of clause (c) of paragraph 20 of the Standing Orders and, therefore, the order of dismissal had been quashed with co...
Smt. Samsa Parween Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC312
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard Sri A. P. Sahi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the motion of no-confidence against her. Petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Maghar. Sant Kabir Nagar. There are 15 members of Nagar Panchayat and it is alleged that in the meeting of no-confidence motion, only 9 members attended the meeting all 9 members voted against the petitioner. Hence it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 2/3rd did not cast vote against her and the motion of no-confidence could not have been said to have been carried out by the 2/3rd majority in accordance with the Section 87A (12) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. However. Sri S. N. Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that one of the members. Ram Asrey Paswan is a Minister in the U. P. Government and hence he was disqualified under Section 13D (f) of the U. P. Mun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »