Allahabad Court September 1998 Judgments
Ashok Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Jalaun and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC77
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In both the aforesaid petitions, questions of facts and law involved are similar and both the petitions may be decided by acommon order against which learned counsel for the parties have no objection. Petition No. 10594 of 1998 shall be the leading case.2. Both the petitionersaggrieved by their preventivedetention have questioned the legalityof the orders dated 29.12.1997 passedby respondent No. 1, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980(hereinafter referred to as the Act).Copies of the orders have been filedas Annexure-A1 in both the petitions.Along with the order of detention,petitioners were also served thegrounds on which basis respondentNo. 1 formed his subjectivesatisfaction for passing the impugnedorders. Except for a slight variation inrespect of detenu Shankar Singh thegrounds stated are also similar. Inthe grounds it has been stated that inview of the election of the students'union of Mahatma Gandhi DegreeCollege, Orai district Jalaun,schedu...
Tag this Judgment!ShamshuddIn (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC193
R.B.K. Trivedi, J.1. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 15.2.1998, passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, directing detention of petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prayer has also been made to release the detenu-petitioner from detention. The order of detention dated 15.2.1998 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Along with the impugned order of detention, petitioner was also supplied the grounds for passing the same. Narration of the facts in the grounds supplied is as under :2. That on 17.9.1997, at 10.00 p.m. in the night Amjad, son of Mahboob and Pappu, son of Haji Madar abducted one Chhote Lal, sonof Ram Swarup, resident of village Karvat, police station Mughalsaral, district Chandauli and killed him. The offence was registered at police station Mughalsaral as Case Crime No. 306 of 1997, under Section 364/302/201, I. P....
Tag this Judgment!Doomer Singh Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC589
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitionerseeks writ of certiorarf quashing the resolution dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Committee of Management, Sri Ganesh Inter College, Kasganj, Etah. resolving to terminate the services of the petitioner and the letter of the Manager dated 23.10.1997, whereby he was Informed that his services have been terminated and a writ of mandamus commanding the Committee of Management to comply with the order of the District Inspector of Schools. Etah, dated 28.10.1997, whereby he held that the said resolution was inoperative without its approval by the competent authority.2. The facts in brief are that in Sri Ganesh Inter College, Kasganj, Etah (hereinafter referred to as the Institution), there existed a substantive vacancy of Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade for teaching Hindi subject. The Committee of Management sent the resolution pertaining to the said vacancy to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad (In short the Commission). The Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Phellu Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC652
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Land Management Committee passed a resolution on 30.12.1981 allotting plot No. 156 area 3-17-0 and plot No. 204 area 1-7-5 situate in village Dargahpur in favour of Mongey Ram, respondent No. 4. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for cancellation of allotment on the allegation that respondent No. 4 was employed in Indian Army at the time of allotment and his father had already 20.22 Bighas of land and tractors, etc. The allotment was made in contravention of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The 'Munadl' was not duly made and agenda was not circulated before the Land Management Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Jiv Nandan Vs. Collector, Mau and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC164
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Collector, Mau-respondent No. 1, whereby he allowed the revision and directed the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2, to decide the case afresh.2. The facts in brief are that the Lekhpal submitted a report on 23.4.1994 before the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation over plot No. 206 area 0.040 hectare of village Nathanpura, Pargana and Tehsil Ghosi, district Mau. The petitioner was thereafter given a notice dated 6.8.1994 in Z. A. Form 49 asking him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the plot in dispute. The petitioner submitted an objection before respondent No. 2 that he was having his dwelling house over the land in dispute from much before coming into force of U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the Act) and his family members are living therein. He claimed that he was landless agriculturist. He was not in unauth...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Behari Lal Vs. U.P. Export Corporation Ltd. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC169
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. Under challenge, in this writ petition is the order dated 17.2.1993 passed by the Managing Director, U. P. Export Corporation Limited, opposite party No. 2, removing the petitioner from service and the order dated 13.8.1993 dismissing the appeal.2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Executive (Commercial) in the U. P. Export Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on September 5. 1987 with posting at Gangotri Show Room at Lucknow. After his postings at Agra and Bombay, he was transferred and posted as Executive Incharge of Show Room of the Corporation at Bangalore. At Bangalore, internal audit had taken place wherein some discrepancies in the accounts were found and according to the petitioner, he probed into the matter and the Accountant who was found at fault had made good the amount found short. The petitioner, it is contended, reported th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Pal Vs. Manager, Prathama Bank, Rampur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC629
Ravi S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ.1. The petitioner. Mahendra Pal. received a loan of Rs. 4.000 on 14 December, 1985 from Prathama Bank, Branch Chandupura Seekampur, Tehsil Swar, district Rampur. The petitioner says that the loan was provided under a self-Employment Scheme for purchasing a Tanga-Ghoda, that is a hackney carriage. The petitioner did not return the loan at any stage nor the petitioner mentions in the writ petition that he paid a single paisa to discharge the loan. It is accepted that when the loan was taken, it was upon the faith that it would be discharged. Twelve years after the loan was taken, finding that the petitioner would not discharge it, the respondents took out proceedings to recover the loan as a public debt. On 2 June, 1997. a recovery certificate was issued requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 21.986 plus other charges. The petitioner did not respond on this recovery certificate. Instead, he filed an application before the District Magistrate for qu...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Das Daulat Ram and Sons (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. District Magi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC598
B.K. Roy and Sudhir Narain,JJ.1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this command Judgment as they arise out of an order dated 29.5.1998 passed by a learned single Judge allowing Misc. Application No. 27690 of 1997 filed by Suresh Kumar Vadav, respondent No. 5 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5831 of 1995, M/s. Sundar Das Daulat Ram and Sons (P.) Ltd. and another v. District Magistrate, Bareilly and others, for restitution of the property of Imperial Cinema building situate at College Road, Bareilly. The reference in these appeals as to the appellant and the respondents shall be with reference to Special Appeal No. 425 of 1998.2. The facts :The facts giving rise to these appeals are that Waqf Alal Aulad, respondent No. 3. is owner of the land. Smt. Irshad Jahan Begum, (respondent No. 4) acting as Mutwalli, executed an agreement to lease of the land in question on 20th May, 1950 in favour of Sri Om Prakash Gupta for the purpose of constructing a cinema building and for running ci...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and Others Vs. Kunwar Prahlad Singh Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC934
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. The presentrevision arises out of proceedings under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of U. P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act. 1976 (for short 'the Act') and is directed against the order dated 28.9.1993 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur.2. It appears that respondent Kunwar Prahlad Singh Srivastava filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The claim petition was allowed and award was given in favour of the respondent by the Tribunal on 28.5.1990. The operative portion of the award as has been quoted in the impugned order reads as follows :'The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,449.15 paisa together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of payment. The payment should be made within 3 months from today. The opposite parties are also directed to prepare a seniority list and to consider the matter of the promotion of the petitioner, as and when it falls. The...
Tag this Judgment!AnaruddIn Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC204
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner wasappointed in the post of Lekhpalunder the Dying-in-Harness Rules.Admittedly, though he possessed theessential qualification but he did notpossess the pre-requisitequalification for the post of Lekhpal.viz., the training. In order to beappointed tn the post of Lekhpal, acandidate has to undergo training andrequisite examination as provided inthe U. P. Land Records Manual inPart-II. A circular was issued on15.2.1991 to the effect that suchuntrained candidates appointed underthe Dying in Harness Rules should besent for the same training as aremeant for the general candidates withthe condition that after the training isover, if he fails in the examination. Inthat event he would be removed fromthe service. It Is alleged that pursuantto the said circular, he was sent fortraining but he had failed. By anorder dated 2.4.1996, the petitioner'sservice was dispensed with under theprovisions of the U. P. TemporaryGovernment Servants (Termination ofService) Rules....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »