Allahabad Court August 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.
Balraj Singh and Others Vs. Sachiv/Mahaprabandhak, District Co-op. Ban ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC663
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri K. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Sri R. P. Goel, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondents.2. For effective adjudication and resolution of controversy raised herein, it is expedient to recapitulate the chronology of acts and events constituting undisputed facts which are, as they emerge from the pleadings before the Court, as below.3. At the relevant time, the petitioners were working as Branch Manager of Moradabad, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited at Moradabad.4. By three separate orders dated 19th September. 1981. 22nd October, 1981 and 10th December. 1981, the petitioners were suspended pending disciplinary Inquiry against them.5. The petitioners challenged the suspension before the Industrial Tribunal (II), U. P. at Lucknow.6. While proceedings against the suspension orders were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners were dismissed by three separate orders, two dated 13th May, 1983, and the thir...
Bharat Jan Kalyan Samiti, Allahabad Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2143
B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.1. The petitioner. Bharat Jan Kalyan Sarhiti, who claims itself to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, has come up for quashing the amended Rule 90 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as published in the Government of India Gazette [Extraordinary) Chapter II Part III (11), dated 31.12.1997 raising the maximum limit of the election expenses to Rs. 15 lacs for a Parliamentary constituency and to Rs. 6 lacs for a State Legislature Constituency.2. The Central Government has exercised its powers vested under Section 169 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, after consultation with the Election Commission which is apparent from a bare perusal of the Gazette notification Itself.3. The petitioner asserts that the amendment aforesaid is ultra litres Article 14 of the Constitution of India but without demonstrating as to how it has offended the equality clause.4. The petitioner avers, inter alia, that this debars young man and woma...
Prakash Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2391
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated in respect of agricultural lands of Prakash Singh. Harpal Singh and Dilip Kaur wherein by order dated 30.4.1983, it was decided that an area of 2.20 acres is surplus land of Smt. Dilip Kaur and 2.22 acres of each of other two persons. Three appeals were preferred against the said order which were dismissed. The present petitioners moved application under Section 13A of the said Act to give effect to the said order dated 30.4.1983 and firstly an area of 18.4 acres each may be measured, only then surplus land can be taken into possession. By order dated 22.1.1983, the said application was rejected. Appeals filed against them were also dismissed.With the aforesaid contentions and challenging the said orders, this writ petition was filed.2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit were filed.3. After perusing the materials on records and hearing the learned cou...
Smt. Jinat Rahman Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC248; (1998)3UPLBEC2077
O.P. Garg, J 1.By the impugned order dated 16.1.1998. Annexure-8 to the writ petition, Smt. Zinat Rahman, Principal of Madarsa Niswan Inter College. Azarngarh was placed under suspension for a period of 40 days in pursuance of the decision of the Committee of Management, which was convened for the purpose of 10.1.1998. Dr. Fakhre Alam-respondent No. 4 is the Manager of the Committee of Management of the college-respondent No. 3. This order of suspension has been challenged in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily on the ground that the Committee of Management or for that matter. Dr. Fakhre Alam, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, have no right or authority to suspend the petitioner on account of on going protracted dispute between the rival Committees of Management. Abdul Rahim Ansari, asserting himself to be the Manager, has been joining Issues on the point with Dr. Fakhre Alam. It is alleged that the petitioner has been made a scape goat of the in-fighting b...
Sad BIn Akhtar Vs. Registrar, Homoeopathic Medicine Board and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC825a
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The petitioner after completing the Court (sic course) of Bachelor of Homoeopathic and Master of Surgery from University of Rajasthan has applied for registration as a Homoeopathic Medical Practitioner before the Registrar Homeopathic Board and others but his application still remains pending and has not been disposed of may be for the reasons that necessary enquiries have not been completed. The petitioner submits that some posts for selection of Homoeopathic Doctors have been advertised by the Public Service Commission and for want of registration, he is unable to apply for the same.2. As the question involved in the writ petition is too trivial to drag unnecessarily before this Court, hence after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Registrar Homoeopathic Board to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the ...
Amit Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1878
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Bail prayer on behalf of the applicant is pressed on the ground that he is assigned the role of exhortation and conspiring with actual assailants and that the applicant's age is below 16 years and thus he is juvenile. Learned A. G. A. submits that considering heinous nature of the offence the applicant is not entitled to bail.3. The plea regarding age of the applicant was also taken before the learned Sessions Judge. It is really shocking that the learned Sessions Judge without adverting to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act) brushed aside the arguments by observing that merely on the ground that the applicants are minors they are not entitled to bail.4. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 came into force w.e.f. 2nd October, 1987 vide official Gazette Notification dated 13-8-87. Section 7(1) of the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Board or Juvenile Court constituted for the ar...
Alfa Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(82)LC245(Allahabad)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. Heard.2. The order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 5th of May, 1998 is modified to the extent that the assessee shall deposit a sum of Rs. five lacs instead of Rs. eight lacs towards duty and Rs. two lacs towards penalty in cash and shall furnish security other than cash or Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. three lac to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within eight weeks from today. The recovery proceedings shall remain stayed in the event of furnishing cash security and other security as aforesaid, till final disposal of the matter by the Tribunal.3. Subject to above the writ application stands disposed of finally....
Kishan Lal Gupta Vs. Ixth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC222
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel.2. Sri Santosh Kumar appears for the caveator-respondents.3. This is tenant's writ petition challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority whereby application for release moved on behalf of the landlord-respondentsunder Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P.Act No. XIII of 1972 has beenallowed. Both the Courts below haverecorded a clear and categoricalfinding that the building in questionis in a dilapidated condition andrequires demolition andreconstruction. It has also beenfound that the landlord has made duecompliance of Rule 17 of the Rules.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that the application for release was not maintainable as the same was moved before the Prescribed Authority within a period of three years from the date of purchase. This argument of the learned counsel on its face is fallacious and cannot be accepted. First proviso of Section 21 (1) of the Act provides that ...
Haridwar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC64; [1999(81)FLR126]
D.K. Seth, J.1. Father of the petitioner died on 5.6.1993. The petitioner had applied for appointment under the Dying In Harness Rules on 21.7.1993. It is alleged that this application has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for appointment under the said rules.2. Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, appointment should have been given to the petitioner and thus writ petition should be allowed.3. However, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it appears that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 29878 of 1994, which was disposed of on 12.9.1994 with the following order :'As the matter is to be decided on facts by the respondents in accordance with law. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct the respondent No. 2 to cons...
Allahabad Development Authority and Others Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Div ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2393
S. R. Singh, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.98 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Allahabad in Execution Case Wo. 2 of 1998, Mahendra Kumar Tripathi v. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, and the order dated 29.4.98 passed by the District Consumer Forum. Allahabad in Case No. 37 of 1996 besides the order dated 14.5.98 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. P. (in short the State Commission).2. The facts wrapped in brevity are that the respondent Mahendra Kumar Tripathi lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Forum. Allahabad for refund of the amount deposited by him for allotment of a plot in Shantipuram Housing Colony, Allahabad. The case was decided in favour of Mahendra Kumar Tripathi vide order dated 7.10.96 whereby the petitioner. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad was directed to return the respondent Mahendra Kumar Tripathi a sum of Rs. 1,54.320 within two months with interest at the rate of 18% per annum ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »