Allahabad Court May 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.
Gupta Medical Store, Agra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2006
D. P. Mohapatra, C. J.` 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have chalknged the Notification No. 325-E-2/XIII-40 (280)-83, dated 30.1.1991, by which Governor of Uttar Pradesh. In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the U. P. Excise Act. 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), declared all patent or proprietary medicinal preparations containing more than 12 per cent alcohol manufactured under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties) Act. 1955, together with 49 spirituous medicinal preparations to be deemed to be liquor for the purposes of transport, possession, sale and supply within the meaning of the Act. Petitioners have further challenged the order dated 21.9.1991 by which Excise Commissioner directed Collectors of all the districts and enforcement authorities under the Excise Act to ensure compliance of the Notification No. 310-E-2/XII1-40/280-83, dated 29.1.1991, under Section 75 of the Act. and the No...
Littar Vs. Ixth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2055
D.K. Seth, J.1. Pursuant to certain earlier agreement a sale deed was executed on 19.5.1984. By reason of Section 5 (c) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953, the sale deed was declared void, since no permission was obtained before effecting the sale deed at the time when notice under Section 4 (2) of the said Act was already issued. Plaintiff obtained necessary permission from the Settlement Officer. Consolidation on 18.6.1984. Thereafter a suit has been filed for specific performance of contract being Suit No. 353 of 1984. On the basis of written statement an issue was framed as to the maintainability of the suit. The said issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff by an order dated 20.8.1997. Civil Revision No. 210 of 1997, was preferred by the defendant-petitioner. By order dated 28.3.1998 passed by the IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge. Muzaffarnagar, the said revision was dismissed.2. Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that th...
Balaji Oil and Dal Mill and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1851
B.K. Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ.1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to transfer or auction the properties of petitioner No. 1 without first assessing their value through a Government approved valuer and ascertaining accounting andadjusting value of the transfers already made by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. On their prayer vide order dated 12.7.1995, the Court passed an interim order staying auction of the properties until further orders. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are partners of petitioner No. 1. M/s. Balaji Oil and Dal Mill, which is a partnership firm. On an application filed by the firm, the U. P. Financial Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10.35 lacs though the firm received Rs. 10.03 lacs only. The firm suffered loss resulting in institution of Insolvency Case No. 2 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and Insolvency Case No. 3 of 1991 filed by petitioner No....
Barrya Auto Ancillaries (P.) Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2357
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 25.9.82 by means of which the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the complainant-workman Phool Chand Gupta, with effect from 1.7.82, was illegal and irregular. The order of the employer dated 30.6.82 terminating the services of the complainant-workman was, therefore, quashed and the workman was reinstated with full back wages with effect from 1.7.82.2. The facts giving rise to the award is that a complaint under Section 6F of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was filed by the workman Phool Chand Gupta against the petitioner alleging that his services were terminated with effect from 1.7.82 inspite of the fact that he was a 'concerned workman' in adjudication Case No. 19 of 1960 which was pending before the Tribunal. The adjudication-Case No. 19 of 1980 pertained to the lay-off in the establishment of the petitioner. The workman had asserted that he could not have been removed from servi...
Zila Panchayat, Bijnor Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Bijnor and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2252
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 18.4.1996 passed in Appeal No. 247 of 1989, by Additional District Judge (VII) Court, Bijnor, the appeal was dismissed, for default. An application under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed. By an order dated 18.3.1998 the said application was dismissed. It is against this order the present writ petition has been filed.2. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that the impugned order is wholly perverse and could not have been passed, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has led me through the records of the case.3. Sri M. S. Haq, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the contention of Sri N. C. Rajvanshl. According to him the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance so as to enable the Court to restore the appeal. According to him writ jurisdiction can be invoked by a person who cames with unclean hand. Unless the petitioner...
Mannu Ram and anr. Vs. Additional District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1035
D.K. Seth, J.1. Leave is granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps to amend the cause title course of today.2. The claim petition of the petitioners being Claim Case No. 23 of the 1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ballia, was dismissed in default on 12.8.1992. It appears that an application for restoration was filed on 29.10.1992. The said application was registered as Application No. 74 of 1992. The restoration application was dismissed in default on 27.51994. A restoration application against the said order was filed on 11.7.94, which was registered as Case No. 3-A of 1994. By an order dated 18.11.1997 the said application was rejected. All these orders have since been challenged in this petition.3. Mr. Ashish Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the court below had taken a very technical view of the matter...
Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs. District Judge, Mau and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC152
D. K. Seth, J.1. By the order dated 23.11.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mau, in Original Suit No. 1796 of 1995, the preliminary issue as to whether the suit for Injunction without any relief being sought for declaration on adjudication of title would abate by reason of Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) or whether such suit is barred before the civil court in view of Section 49 of the said Act, was decided in favour of the plaintiffs ' holding that the suit as framed was maintainable before the civil court. A revision being Civil Revision No. 16 of 1996 was preferred by the petitioner. By an order dated 18.2.1998 learned District Judge, Mau had dismissed the revision affirming the order of the learned Munslf. These two orders have been challenged through this writ petition.2. Sri Navin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition submitted that the relief ...
Suraj Prasad Tiwari Vs. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1622; (1998)2UPLBEC1484
O.P. Garg, J.1. In this writ petition, the moot point for consideration and determination is whether a person serving as a Company Commander, Home Guards, holds 'civil post' and is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to this controversy, briefly stated, are as follows.2. Suraj Prasad Tiwart the petitioner, who is a graduate, was enrolled as Home Guard in the year 1987. Subsequently, looking to his sincerity, devotion to work and excellent performance, he was selected and upgraded to the post of Company Commander. He was posted as Company Commander. Home Guards in Muskara in district Hamirpur. The appointment of the petitioner as Company Commander was for a period of three years under the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Home Guards Adhintyam, 1963 (U. P. Act No. XXIX of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The initial period of appointment was further extended to three years to commence from 7.2.1997. The p...
Smt. Rahil Massy Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Bareilly and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1857
D.K. Seth, J.1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-landlord on 5.2.1991. The defendant-landlord filed counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6A of 7th May. 1991 alleging that the plaintiff was a licensee under him and the licence was revoked on 14.2.1991. This counter claim was refused by the trial court by order dated It.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional Munsif (III) Court. Barellly in Original Suit No. 56 of 1991. Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991 was preferred against the same. By an order dated 4.10.1993 the Additional District Judge (V) Court, Bareilly had allowed the said revision and accepted the counter claim and directed the suit to proceed in accordance with law. The plaintiff had challenged this order through Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. An interim order was obtained on 13.10.1993 staying further proceeding of the suit.2. Sri. K. K. Arora. learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present in the Court informs that si...
Gaya Prasad Srivastava Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Throu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1872; [1998(80)FLR945]; (1998)2UPLBEC1237
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This writ petition is unusual and extraordinary in its awn nature as this Court's experience is that the Government servants have been filing writ petitions regarding correction of date of birth to claim age benefit after superannuation on one reason or the other but this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner whose grievance is that Shri Zubair Ahmad, respondent No. 3, was born on 4.1.1941 and he joined the services in the High Court as Lower Division Clerk on 9.4.1962 on the basis of order dated 17,2.1962 as a result of competitive examination held by the High Court in April. 1961. He was appointed Bench Secretary Grade II by order dated 24.7.1979 and was also promoted as Bench Secretary Grade I on 31.5.1990. According to Gradation List of Bench Secretary Grade I (Annexure No.-2), the respondent No. 3 is placed at Sl. No. 1 and Shri Ambika Narain and Shri V. K. Pandey are placed at SI. Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.2. It may be mentioned that there are two post...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »