Allahabad Court April 1998 Judgments
Rastogi Brothers and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC510; [1999(81)FLR71]
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The factual matrix of the case as set up in short compass by the parties, is that one Sri S. L. Tewari, Provident Fund Inspector, visited the firm of M/s. Rastogi Brothers. 10 Aminabad Park. Lucknow. on 28.4.78. He found that the establishment had employed more than 20 persons as on 30.4.78. The said establishment was engaged in stationery products and had completed five years from the date it was set-up. The said Inspector recommended for applicability of the provision^ of the Employees' Provident Fund (and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). A list of 25 employees, working in the establishment as on 30.4.78 was enclosed with the enquiry report by the said Inspector.2. On receipt of the enquiry report of the Inspector, the establishment was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. U. P., that the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder was applicable to the establishment with effect from 30.4.78 provisionally, as the establis...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Vikram Khare Vs. District Judge, Banda and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1525; (1998)3UPLBEC1972
S. R. Singh, J.1. Certain vacancies in Class III posts in the Judgeship of Banda were publicised by means of the notification which came to be published in NAVKAAMYUG PRAKASHAN, a newspaper issuing from Banda, on 28.8.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The challenge herein is to a part of the notification fixing 1.10.1996 as the cut-off date for the purpose of computing the prescribed age-limit. The notification embodies the condition that the candidates should not be less than 18 years and more than 32 years of age on 1.10.1996.2. The bottom-line of the argument advanced by petitioner's counsel is that according to Notification No. 18/2/81, Karmik-2, Lucknow dated December 11, 1984 (Annexure-3), the prescribed age-limit is to be determined with reference to 1st day of July of the year in which vacancies are notified for direct recruitment and, therefore, the District Judge, submitted the learned counsel, was not justified in fixing 1.10.1986 as the cut-off date for the purpose of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Family Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1740; I(1999)DMC10
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 22.4.1997 passed by Shri B. D. S. Srivastava, Judge, Family Court, Varanasi by which the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has decided two cases :(i) Case No. 268 of 1995 Rajesh v. Kumud--Application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The said application was dismissed by the aforesaid order. (ii) Case No. 316 of 1995, Kumud v. Rajesh--Application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said application was allowed by the aforesaid Judgment and decree. 2. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the appellant-husband had moved application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 26.9.1995. The wife-respondent moved an application under Section 13 of the Act on 9.11.1995.3. In order to understand the controversy in the present appeal, the following few facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Kauslesh Vikram Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1924
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 3.1.1998 at Annexurc-13 to the writ petition passed by the lllrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 Sri Chandra Bali Singh under Section 12C (6] of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act.2. The relevant facts stated in the writ petition are that in the month of April, 1995, election of Gram Panchayat of Ugrasenpur alias Bibipur, Pargana Mah, Block Pratappur. Tahsil Handia. district Allahabad was held wherein seven candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 contested for the office of Pradhan. The petitioner was allotted symbol Tractor' and the respondent No. 2 was allotted symbol 'Watch'.3. Election was held on 12.4.1995 and counting took place on 18/19.4.1995 and the result was declared on 19.4.1995 declaring the respondent No. 2 Shri Chandra Bali Singh as elected Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. As there was bungling at the time of counting regarding...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1979; [1998(79)FLR846]; (1998)3UPLBEC2263
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to create supernumerary Class III post for his appointment on compassionate ground.2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner Late Uttam Kumar Mishra was working as a Lecturer in Commerce in Puwayan Inter College, Puwayan, district Shahjahanpur. He died in-harneas on 28.11.1995. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground stating therein that he has passed Intermediate examination and also completed his B.A. Part 1 examination. The Manager of the institution is alleged to have issued appointment letter on 15.9.1997 appointing him as Class III employee in the institution. The papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, respondent No. 4, He sent a letter dated 19.9.1997 to the Manager of the institution intimating him that the Government, by its order dated 16.8.1996, had directed to create supernumerary Class IV post and not Class III ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sheela Sabharwal and Others Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1946
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Krishna, petitioner's counsel. Sri Vishnu Gupta and Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate appear for the caveator respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (landlords).2. This is tenant's writ petition. The dispute relates to a portion of House No. 3. Baird Road (B. P. Jain Road). Allahabad which is in the tenancy of the petitioners since before the same was purchased by the present landlords. It is not disputed that the present release application by the landlords was filed against the petitioner after making compliance of the first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act by serving the required notice on the tenant. The landlords filed release application that they required the entire tenanted accommodation for their personal need as the accommodation already in their occupation was insufficient to cater their need who are a man of high status of society. The tenant-petitioners denied the said allegation of the landlords and asserted that the accommodation in their possession ...
Tag this Judgment!iftikhar Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. State of Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1981
S.R. Singh, J. 1. Petitioner, who retired from Government Service as Consolidation Officer on 31.7.92, has invoked the procedure of this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.95 of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and disciplinary proceeding initiated against him qua charge-sheet embodied in office memo No. 2075/VI-Ka-ST, dated 2.4.1988. The departmental proceedings which were admittedly pending at the time of petitioner's retirement, are sought to be quashed basically on two grounds, firstly that after retirement, no departmental proceedings could be continued against a Government servant and secondly, that the proceedings are barred by Section 49A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act in that the disciplinary proceedings appertain to judicial duties performed by the petitioner as Consolidation Officer and Section 49A provides in no uncertain terms, that no suit, ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Western Zone, Meerut Vs. U.P. P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2098; [1999(82)FLR351]; (1998)3UPLBEC2115
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.3.1985, passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal (V). Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the claim of Baru Singh, respondent No. 2, holding that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was 21.10.1925 instead of 17.6.1922 recorded in his Service Book.2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 was initially appointed in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways as driver on 14.11.1952 on temporary basis. In the year 1955, respondent No. 2 was directed to present himself before the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarnagar for obtaining the certificate of fitness, as required under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules. The Civil Surgeon examined respondent No. 2 and issued certificate on 18.6.1955 that according to his own statement, he was 32 and half years of age and by appearance he looks 33 years old. On the basis of the above certificate, the age of respondent No. 2 was men...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Raish Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1232
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the writ petition.2. By order dated 15.9.97 learned Standing Counsel was granted 8 week's time to file counter affidavit but till date the respondents could not file counter affidavit in the case. I accordingly proceed to dispose of the writ petition on the basis of allegations made therein and the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the Bar.3. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 16.5.96 on a class IV post at Government Scheduled Caste Hostel, Bijnor. The appointment was adhoc/temporary in nature with stipulation that it could be terminated at any time without notice. By the order impugned herein dated 30th July, 1997 the appointment order dated 16.5.96 has been cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that the Joint Director (Samaj Kalyan), Moradabad Region, Moradabad who had issued appointment order...
Tag this Judgment!Nahar Singh Vs. Ramdutt and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1544
R.N. Ray, J.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract which was numbered as Suit No. 49 of 1978, Nahar Singh v. Moola and others. That suit was contested by the defendants and upon considering the materials on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit. The contesting defendants preferred an appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1981. That appeal was partly allowed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No, 423 of 1981, plaintiff as appellant has preferred this appeal.3. Plaintiff-defendant No. 1 executed a registered agreement to sell on accepting of consideration money on 29.12.1977. Plaintiff was also willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants did not execute any document on acceptance of balance sum, so the plaintiff sent a registered notice on 15.2.1978 to the defendants. The said notice was refused...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »