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.
Mahendra Deo NaraIn Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1262
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.12.1989 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of U.P. Forest Corporation, Lucknow, rejecting the representation and claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. Prayers for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Grade-II in U.P. Forest Corporation and grant seniority with all other consequential benefits with effect from the date the person junior to the petitioner was promoted to the said post have also been made.2. The relevant facts of the case, giving rise to this petition, as unfolded in the writ petition, are that it was in the year 1977 that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in U.P. Forest Corporation. At the time of h...
Bandhu Yadav Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)3UPLBEC2143
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.4.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, on the ground that the petitioner is being suspended pursuant to show cause notice issued to him on the same day requiring him to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within fifteen days. According to him when he was asked to show cause within 15 days, he cannot be suspended without waiting for 15 days and only after giving reply to the show cause notice, he could have suspended. He also assails the said order on merit.2. According to him the said show-cause notice does not disclose any sufficient ground for placing the petitioner under suspension. He alleges that the allegations made in the shoe-cause notice are baseless and on the basis of such allegations he could not have been suspended.3. After having heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Upadhayaya, learned Standing Counsel, it appears that the ...
High Court of Judicature Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4212
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. On 26-8-97, this Court issued the following show cause notice :-based on the news item published in N.I. Patrika, an Allahabad daily of reporter.Testing time again for Public:-1. Cops death during duty ignored.2. It was a day of acid test for the Allahabad administration especially for the police who even at the cost of their life did not allow any infringement of security of Ms. Mayawati, who did not even bother to condole the death of a constable, who died on way to VIP duty for the Chief Minister's visit today. The common public too had to face a lot of inconvenience since the entire crossing of the VIP route was cordoned for the security reasons for hours on end.3. The terror of Ms. Mayawati hovered above everyone - be it the common beat cop or high-ranking officials and was not dispelled till she left the city. Every effort was made to avoid any mishap as the traditional VIP route via High Court was changed and the Chief Minister was taken from the highl...
Mohd. Jubair Vs. District Judge, Jaunpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1860
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 1688 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge. (Junior Division). Jaunpur. In connection with the said suit, he filed an application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 13.11.1997, ad interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order dated 4.2.1998 the application for temporary injunction was rejected on contest. Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1998 was preferred against the said order. By an order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was upheld. These orders have been challenged in this petition.2. Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the appeal court had thoroughly on misconception of facts come to the finding that no prima facie case was made out. It has come to the finding that plot No. 38 is recorded as patri in the name of the plaintiff and Khasra for the year 1404 Fa...
Raghubans Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1830
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of all the three writ petitions mentioned above as they involve common questions of fact and law.2. The emergency provision and other relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) have been invoked for construction of 500 bedded hospital at Basti. The requisite Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Act was issued on 27.9.1990 and was published in Gazette on 13.10.1990 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.11.1990 and was published in the Gazette on 24.11.1990. The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also published in two daily newspapers in accordance with the Rules as mentioned in the counter-affidavit.3. In these cases interesting questions has been raised from the point of view of the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Notifications on the ground of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India alleging that major portion of plot No. 121 has...
Anil Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Badaun and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC464
D. S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Shiv Nath Dey. holding brief of Shri C. P. Ghildayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri R. U. Ansari, holding brief of Shri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2, and Shri Sanna Ullah, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the bye-laws made by the Town Area.Babrala, district Budaun, whereby places for parking motor-vehicles of various descriptions, carrying passengers, have been earmarked and parking fee has been prescribed. A copy of the impugned bye-laws is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.3. The learned counsel of the petitioner could not dispute that in view of the provisions of Sections 293, 293A and 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. and Full Bench decision of this'Court rendered in the case of Dashrath Yadav and others v. Zila Parishad Kashetriya Samiti. 1954 UPLBEC 49, a...
Dr. Ram Murti Chaturvedi Vs. Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvav ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1217
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs through this writ petition:-'(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.7.1986 passed by the Chancellor respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure '8' to this writ petition;(ii) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamuss directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning as Lecturer in Rig-Veda. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and (iv) to award costs.'2. This writ petition is coming up for hearing after the petitioner obtained a stay order on 23rd August, 1986 by which the operation of order of Chancellor dated 15.7.1986 was stayed by virtue of which petitioner's appointment as a Lecturer in Rig-Veda in the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya was found to be illegal as he lacked basic qualification and also on other grounds which a...
Prabhat NaraIn Tickoo Vs. Mrs. Mamta Tickoo and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1551; II(1998)DMC333
M. Katju, J.1. Heard Sri Sunil Ambwani for the petitioner, Sri P. K. Srivastava for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner is an officer in the Indian Navy and he has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar being Divorce Petition No. 750 of 1996.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the third prayer in the petition, viz., that the petitioner should be allowed to appear through his counsel before the Family Court.4. The petitioner is an officer in the Indian Navy. He was married to respondent No. 1 in 1992. Presently he is posted in Bombay and he has difficulty in getting leave as he is in the Naval Service. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Divorce Case No. 750 of 1996 against respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 1 flled Misc. Case No. 603 of 1995 under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against the petitioner and both these cases...
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. District Magistrate, Farrukhabad and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1859
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of fair price shop licence on the basis of the legal opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil), Farrukhabad, dated 23.11.1996 to the District Supply Officer, Farrukhabad vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition.3. In our opinion, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. Firstly, the legal opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil), dated 23.11.1996 addressed to the District Supply Officer is a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. It is surprising that in a large number of cases coming before us, the legal opinion given by the counsel to their clients are being annexed to the petitions being filed before us.4. In our opinion, no such legal opinion can be disclosed to the Court and it is barred under Section 126 of the Evidence Ac(. unless it comes within the proviso to Section 126 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the ...
Satya Prakash Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act), Agra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1876
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgment and order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act). Agra.2. The facts, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a J.S.C. Suit No. 124 of 1993 was filed by the respondent. Murari Lal Goyal, against the petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question on the ground that the petitioner has made material alteration in the shop in question. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement on the ground that the shop in question is under the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 300, that liability of paying house tax is not on the petitioner ; that uptodate rent has been deposited in the Court under Section 30 (1) of Act No. X11I of 1972. that there was no new material alteration in the shop in question and as the petitioner has deposited the rent, he is entitled to the benefit o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »