Allahabad Court April 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.
Pankaj Srivastava Vs. Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1473
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Two orders dated 19th September, 1991 and 24th September. 1991 passed by the Principal, Mott Lal Nehru Engineering College, Allahabad have been challenged in the present writ petition. By means of an interim order dated 25th October, 1991, operation of both the orders was stayed.2. By the first order dated 19th September. 1991 being Annexure-1 to the writ petition on the alleged ground of his involvement in ragging, the petitioner was rusticated for one year and his re-admission was also directed not to be considered till the period of rustication. However, he was permitted to appear in the supplementary examination of B.E. first year class but he was directed not to enter hostel or college premises. By the second order dated 24thSeptember, 1991, a notice was Issued in which the petitioner's name was Included at serial No. 4, whereby it was directed that petitioner will not be allowed admission until rustication period is over and that in case of further complaint, the...
Smt. Minoti Mazumdar Vs. Tara Chand and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1479
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In execution of a decree dated 7.11.1963 passed in Original Suit No. 299 of 1963 between Tara Chand and B. L. Mitra, the suit property was sold in auction on 17.4.1965. The sale certificate was issued on 23rd August. 1965. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 58 claiming that she was in possession of the disputed house in pursuance of an agreement for sale executed by B. L. Mitra on 3.8.1962, in part performance whereof the possession of the said property was delivered to the petitioner. The said objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 1965 which was ultimately dismissed on 23rd May, 1965 on merits, whereafter the auction sale was confirmed by issuing sale certificate on 23rd August, 1965. The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 88 of 1965 on 21st September. 1965 which was dismissed on 21.12.1966. First Appeal No. 138 of 1967 preferred against the said decree dated 21.12.1966 was allowed by remanding the case for disposal with the direction...
Badri Vs. Additional Collector, Ghazipur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1706
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The order dated 5.5.1987 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Collector, Ghazipur in Revision No. 83/140 has been assailed in the present writ petition.2. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by the said order, the revision which was preferred against the order passed by the Assistant Collector in a Proceedings being proceeding No. 306 under Section 122B, read with Rule 115C, of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the rules framed thereunder was allowed and the matter was remanded for decision afresh by the Assistant Collector. According to him, the said order suffers from infirmity to the extent that the revislonal authority did not apply his mind and despite being sufficient material being placed before him had remanded the case without considering the materials.3. Shri Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that against the decision of the Collector, the petitioner is en...
Ajay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Shanti Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1792
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel.2. This is tenant's petition challenging the order dated 20.3.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 and the orders dated 15.1.94 and 15.9.94 passed by the respondent No. 3.3. According to the petitioner, the disputed portion of House No. C-26/35-A-ID, Mohalla Bagh Kanhaiya Lal, Lahura Veer (Ram Katora), Varanasi was let out to the petitioner by Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 on 1.1.1991 and since then he is in occupation thereof with the consent of the landlady, respondent No. 1. On 4.11.1993, an application was moved by Shri Ram Singh for allotment of the said accommodation and on the basis of which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to make an enquiry and by his order dated 15.1.94 declared the accommodation in question vacant. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 landlady moved an application for release under Section 16 of the Act. The said application was, however, rejected by the respondent No. 2 by ...
Prem Chandra Pandey Vs. Smt. Savitri Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1903; II(1998)DMC446; (2002)2SCC73
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This common judgment disposes of these appeals.2. In First Appeal No. 358 of 1996, the husband has questioned the validity of the order dated 8.7.1996 passed by Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Family Judge, Allahabad in Matrimonial Petition No. 361 of 1991 allowing the petition of the wife filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of desertion by the husband and granting a decree of Rs. 12,000 towards price of the scooter and Rs. 500 as alimony per month.The wife, being not satisfied with that part of the order refusing to grant a decree in her favour in respect of other properties claimed by her, has filed First Appeal No. 337 of 1996 for setting aside the order to that extent.3. Matrimonial Petition No, 6 of 1991 was filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Act alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was settled by negotiations of the parents of both sides during which several demands of dowry were made by her ...
Sumitra Dhulia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC1966
O.P. Garg, J.1. The moot point for consideration in the present writ petition is whether a widow of a High Court Judge who died prior to the commencement of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1986 is entitled to family pension according to the provisions made in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended in the year 1986 or according to the Central Services (Pension) Rules, applicable to the officers of Central Services Group 'A'. This controversy has come up in the wake of the following facts.2. Late Sri Keshav Chandra Dhulia, whose date of birth was 13.11.1929, was elevated to the Bench of this Court on 24th May, 1984. Unfortunately, he died on 16.1.1985 on which date, he had hardly completed eight months as a Judge of this Court. In the normal course, he would have continued as a High Court Judge till 13.11.1991 on which date he was to attain the age of 62 years. A family pension of Rs. 250/- per month, w.e.f. 17.1.1985 was g...
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3709
Girdhar Malaviya, J.1. The following question has been referred by learned single Judge to be decided by this Court:-Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected.2. Before the learned single Judge reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Gama v. State of U.P. reported in 1987 Cri LJ 242. The learned single Judge in paragraph 5 of his judgment observed as follows :-I am conscious that order on a bail application need not be detailed one but as the legal points were argued from both sides which require a bit detail discussion. After hearing the counsel for the parties at considerable length, the first point for determination is as to whether the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants about the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses being recor...
Smt. Anguri Devi Vs. Iind Addl. District Judge, Pratapgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1930
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Petitioner by means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12.4.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the release application of the petitioner in exercise of powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (For short the Act) and order dated 27.7.1985 passed by the appellate authority under the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2 to proceed and decide the release application of the petitioner on merit has also been made.2. It appears that petitioner who happens to be the landlady of shop No. 1/10, Chowk Ghantaghar. Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute) filed an application for release application un...
Smt. Chanda Vs. Iind Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2221
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record of the case.2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner challenges, the validity of order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 26.3.1998 and the order dated 17.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 2 Prescribed Authority.3. It appears that respondent No. 3 Smt. Haideri filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the building in question on the ground of personal need and hardship. The petitioner, who happened tobe the tenant in the building in question, objected to it and contested the release application. It was pleaded that neither the need of respondent No. 3 was genuine nor she was likely to suffer hardship in case the release application was rejected. Parties produced evidence for and against. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the release application vide the ...
Mansik Chikitsalaya Karmchari Union Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC1977
D.K. Seth, J.1. Shri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order dated 12.6. 90 by which fixation of scale pursuant to the IIIrd Pay Commission was amended on the ground that the same is arbitrary and discriminatory and contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work. He also contends that Attendants and Head Attendants of the petitioner's department are doing the job similar to that of Jail Warders and Head Warders, Police Constable and Foresters in the State of U.P. who are getting higher scale which should also be accorded to the petitioner.2. I have heard Shri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. I have also heard Shri V.R. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel.3. It appears that pursuant to the IIIrd Pay commission by an order 28.4.1990, scales of different posts in the medical department was prescribed. In S1. No. 18 Head Attendant was placed in the scale of Rs. 825-1200 and that of Mahila Head Attendant at Rs. 775-1025 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »