Allahabad Court July 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.
Prabhat Ranjan Sharma Vs. Director, Technical Education, U.P., Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC749
D.S. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, an erstwhile senior lecturer of the Government aided Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology at Allahabad, born on 4th December, 1937, was to retire on 31st December, 1997. on attaining the age of superannuation. He claims that he is entitled to continue in service till 30th June, 1998 in terms of the Government Order dated 27th June, 1988, a copy whereof is Annexure-'1' to the petition.2. The. respondents assert that the petitioner is not entitled to the extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. To buttress this assertion, reliance is placed on the Government Order dated 15th March, 1996. This Government Order is on record as Annexure-'2' to the petition and Annexure-C.A.-III to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2.3. It is not disputed that the prescribed age of superannuation of teachers serving in Government aided Technical Institute is 58 years. However, the Government Order dated 15th March, 1996 (Annexure-'2'...
Anil Kumar Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)1UPLBEC122
Alok Chakrabarti, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Though no counter affidavit has been filed inspite of opportunity granted but the question involved herein as argued by learned Counsel for the parties being a question of law, learned Counsel for both the parties agreed for final disposal of the writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to impugned order at Annexure-9 to the writ petition dated 13.3.1991 and contended that reference sought for by the petitioner has been refused upon deciding the dispute on merit and it is contended that thereby the authority concerned acted beyond jurisdiction. A reference was made to the decisions in this connection decided by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Irrigation Karmchari Sangh v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1985 SC 860, Ram Autar Sharma v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1985 SC 915 and Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Government of India, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1667.3...
Mahesh Chandra Misra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ315
ORDERO.P. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against order dated 2nd February, 1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri by which process has been issued against the revisionists on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C.2. The facts of the case are somewhat unusual. According to F.I.R. (Annexure-1) lodged by complainant Ashok Kumar Dixit, opposite party No. 2, he had to go to ease himself at 1.00 a.m. in the night intervening 10th/11th April, 1992. He found that as usual truck No. U.P.-77/9264 belonging to his brother, Indresh Kumar Dixit, was parked nearby. His brother Indresh Kumar Dixit and the driver of the truck, Alok Kumar Dixit, were sleeping on the roof of the cabin of the truck. Suddenly driver Alok Kumar Dixit started the truck and switched on the head lights of the truck. As soon as he did so, six persons namely Mahesh Chandra, Ganesh Chandra, Ajay Kumar, Kamlesh Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Jayant Kumar (revisionists) together with three unknown pers...
Jolly Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cegat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(78)LC262(Allahabad)
ORDERS.L. Saraf, J.1. On deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of four weeks from date, the demand raised by the department shall remain stayed. On deposit being made, the Tribunal shall hear the appeal on merits within a period of two months from the date of said deposit.2. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs....
Ex. J.C. Ramakant Pandey and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2333; (1999)1UPLBEC319
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioners who were Havildars were required to put in 22 years of service. A circular was issued by the Government or India, Ministry of Defence letter No. A/16099/Policy/AG/PS2 (c)/2085/S/D (AG), dated 16.12.1976 which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said letter was issued in partial modification of the existing Rules as contained in para 165 of Regulations for the Army (1962), as amended, and A-I 9/5/65 governing terms of service/tenure limits for retirement of J.C.Os. and N.C.Os. Rank. Age. Service, tenure and limits for retirement was specified in clause (a) for Naik as 22 years of service with colours or 47 years of age, whichever is earlier ; in clause (b) for Dafadar/Havildar-on completion of 24 years of service with colours or 47 years of age whichever is earlier. The said circular further proceeded with the note for retention of N.C.Os. beyond their contractual period of engagement as per the Enrolment form as provided under Paras 144...
Rakshak Rama Shankar Sharma-ii Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1390
D.K. Seth, J.1. Dr. R.G. Padia for petitioner and Mr. Lalji Sinha for respondents.2. Orders dated 16th March, 1985 and 29th May, 1986 contained in Annexures 7 & 8 receptively to the writ petition, have been challenged on the ground of perversity. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner containing two charges that he had extorted Rs. 600/- from two students on gun point, and secondly, he had refused to go on duty to Assam though he was detailed to such duty orally.3. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points our from paragraphs 6 & 7 of the writ petition the defence of the petitioner in respect of the said charges where he had spelt out that the two boys had themselves stated in the enquiry itself that the complaints were extorted from them and that no order for Assan duty was ever communicated to the petitioner. Dr. Padia also points out that these two paragraphs of the writ petition have not been properly dealt with in the counter-affidavit so as to prove the alleg...
Devendra Kumar Rai Vs. Ram Gopal Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)792; 1999CriLJ1349
ORDERS.K. Phaujdar, J.1. The matter was heard on 7-7-1998.2. The applicant made a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5434 of 1997 (Ram Gopal Rai v. Devendra Kumar Rai) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) pending in the Court of CJM, Jhansi. Certain papers were brought on record as annexures to the original affidavit, as also to the supplementary affidavit.3. The complaint in question was filed by Ram Gopal Rai alleging therein that his father was entitled Rs. 62500/- from Devendra Kumar Rai (present applicant) on account of supply of cement as also on account of payment of labour charges in cash. When demanded the accused always insisted that he would make the payment. But he had always been deferring such payment. Finally, he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for payment of the aforesaid sum due to the father of the complainant. The cheque was drawn on the Punjab National Bank and was presented f...
Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. District Judge, Fatehpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1592
J. C. Gupta, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition for quashing the Judgments and orders dated 21.8.87, Annexure-3, dated 16,2.89, Annexure-4, and dated 11.10.90. Annexure-5.2. The respondent No. 3 filed suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner in the Court of respondent No. 2. The same was dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice of demand and termination and also on the ground that the defend ant-petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the provision of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred as the Act). Aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent No. 3 preferred revision before the District Judge and the same was allowed by the Judgment dated 21.8.87 wherein it was held that the defendant-petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act as the amount deposited by him fell short by Rs. 15.40. However, the case was remanded to the trial court to decide according to law the question of service and vali...
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Shyam Lal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC697
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.10.1996 passed by Presiding Officer. Labour Court (Tribunal) U.P.. Falzabad, partly allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1. Prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, not to implement the aforesaid order and not to make recovery of the amount of salary/compensation awarded against respondent No. 4, in pursuance of the letter dated 5.3.1998, have also been made.3. Relevant facts of the case are that the dispute with regard to the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 was firstly taken to the Conciliation Officer, but parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement before him. Consequently, the said dispute was referred to the respondent No. 2 under Section 4K...
Sahdeo Singh Vs. Zila Parishad, Bahraich and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC813
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition 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 4.10.1982, whereby representation filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed by respondent No. 2 Commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the respondent No. 4 was directed to be promoted to the post of Senior Tax Collector, after setting aside the promotion of the petitioner to the said post.3. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of pond keeper vide order dated 26.6.1977, and vide order dated 18.6.1977/21.6.1977 he was promoted to the post of Tax Collector. After the lapse of four years, respondent No. 4 challenged the validity of the promotion of the petitioner, before respondent No. 2. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and filed an appeal. Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »