Allahabad Court January 1999 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.
Bansh NaraIn Pandey Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1053
D.K. Seth, J.1. By or under a letter dated 4th August. 1983, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad had granted permission in respect of additional subjects in the Commerce Department, in Sanskrit, Mathematics and Statics. In the said letter, it was pointed out that the School may obtain permission from the Inspector for running classes in those additional subjects. By or under a letter dated 27th August. 1983 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the Inspector had granted permission to run Class XI in respect of the additional subjects. Clause 4 of the letter dated 4th August, 1983, provides that the Lecturers who are lesser qualified may be removed and adequately qualified Lecturers may be appointed in their place according to the rules.2. Mr. Arun Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. N. Pandey contends in Writ Petition No. 10666 of 1992 that the petitioner had been teaching intermediate classes in Mathematics and ...
Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari Vs. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1154; (1999)3UPLBEC2275
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on 4.5.1967 as a Stenographer in Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad. He alleges that respondent No. 3 was appointed in the Society on 10.12.1973. It is also alleged that the petitioner was born on 1.7.1936 whereas respondent No. 3 was born on 4.2.1943. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on account of resultant vacancy due to retirement of Ms. Namita Khannavis from the post of Office Superintendent, the respondent No. 3 was adjusted in the said vacancy by an order dated 10.12.1991. This order has since been challenged by the petitioner.2. Shri M. A. Qadeer, learnedcounsel for the petitioner contends that society and the institute are two different organisations. The respondent No. 3 is an employee of the society and the salary of respondent No. 3 is being paid by the society. Whereas the petitioner is an employee of the Institute and his salary is being p...
Brijwasi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1177
Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. God, JJ.1. The petitioner, Brijwast Prasad, resident of Sisawan Bazar, district Maharajganj, operates a cinema on a licence. The cinema is known as Golden Picture Palace. The cinema is running since 1976.2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, dated 15 December, 1998, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Barring the merits of the order, at present, suffice it to say, the occasion to assail the order arose when the licence of the petitioner to operate the cinema had been suspended under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979. Specifically, the order had beenpassed, and this aspect is important, under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. Sub-clause (b), in context, gives the cause for which the licence may be suspended. This circumstance js failure to pay the tax due within the time prescribed. Thus, clearly, the impugned action had been taken by the licensing authority, i.e.. the District Magistrate, on being ...
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cane Commissioner, Saharanpur a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC961
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Bhafti Sapru for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders dated 14.12.1998, 16.12.1998/7.1.1999 and 15.1.1999, copies of which are annexed as Annexures-2. 3. and 4 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner. Saharanpur. These orders, in our opinion, amount to reservation orders passed under Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953. Under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act, the reservation order can only be passed by the Cane Commissioner. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines the Cane Commissioner as follows :'Cane Commissioner' means the officer appointed to be Cane Commissioner under Section 9 and includes an Additional Cane Commissioner appointed under Section 10'Section 10 of the Act states as follows :'The State Government may appoint any person or designate any Government Officer...
Lal Bahadur and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1049
D.S. Sinha and B.K. Sharma, JJ.1. No body appears for the petitioners though the petition has been taken up for consideration on revision of the cause list.2. Heard Sri S. G. Hasnain, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondents.3. Notifications dated 4th November, 1988 and 22nd April, 1989, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, respectively and the notice dated 30th July. 1990, issued under Section 9 of the Act, relating to the proceedingsfor acquisition of land for construction of Digh Distributary in the District of Allahabad, are under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 26 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioners are in possession of their land sought to be acquired.4. The writ petition received consideration of the Court on 23rd October 1990 and it directed the standing counsel to file counter-affidavit within two weeks and required the petition to be listed for...
Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3371
ORDERM.L. Singhal, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.2. It is alleged that on 31 -5-1998 the accused-applicant, husband of the deceased, along with his father and mother, on account of dowry demand set fire to the deceased resulting in her death. Undisputedly, the marriage took place 4-5 years before. There are several allegations of demand of dowry. There is no evidence that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the applicant or his any relative in connection with the demand of dowry. The recitals in the First Information Report state that the applicant himself admitted the deceased in the hospital. The allegations in the FIR also show that the parents of the deceased were duly informed. The aforesaid acts of the accused are ; inconsistent with the guilt of the accused-applicant.3. The accused-applicant Shiv Kumar in Case Crime No. 95 of 1998 under Section 498A/304B, I.P.C. and 3...
Raghubar Dayal and Others Vs. Viiith Addl. District Judge, Meerut and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC835
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. 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 ceriiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7.2.1992 passed by VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut, allowing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 259 of 1988.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief arc that Smt. Ramkali, mother of respondent No. 2 to 4, filed Original Suit No. 867 of 1984 for cancellation of the will dated 3.4.1967 executed by Mohan Lal, her father, in favour of the petitioners bequeathing all his agricultural land and residential house situated at Meerut in their favour, and for permanent injunction directing the defendants-petitioners not to transfer the land in dispute infavour of defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners. For the purpose of present case, it is not necessary to state the pleas taken by the parlies in their pleadings (pla...
Udai NaraIn Pandey Vs. Director of Education (Higher Education), Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC897; (1999)3UPLBEC1887
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The order dated 13.10.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Director of Education (Higher Education) allowing the respondent No. 5 to continue as Principal of Shiva Pati Degree College. Soharatgarh, Siddharth Nagar till 30.6.1999 granting him the session benefit in terms of Statute 16.24 of First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 could not be allowed to continue as Principal in terms of the said Statute 16.24 as such benefit is only available as a teacher and one cannot be continued as Head of the Department or Principal applying the said provision of Statute 16.24. On such contention, the present petitioner claiming himself to be the seniormost teacher of the institution is entitled to work as officiating Principal of the institution in question on retirement of the respondent No. 5 on 30.9.1998.3. The respondent No. 5 has filed counter-affidavit and hascontended that he was s...
Bihari Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3836
D.K. Trivedi, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-3-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life in connection with an incident which allegedly took place on 21-5-1992 at about 9 a.m. in village Bari, P.S. Reosa, District Sitapur.2. Accused appellant Bihari is the son of Jodhey deceased and complaint Mani Ram (PW 1) is another son of deceased Jodhey. It is said that Mani Ram as well as Bihari were living in separate portions of the same house and deceased Jodhey used to live with Mani Ram. It is said that Bihari, appellant was not having good character and therefore, often quarrel used to take place between him and Jodhey (deceased). It is said that just two or three days before the incident, one Dhoti and one Katori had been found missing from the house of Jodhey (deceased) and therefore, Jodhey had scolded Bihari in this respect in anger. ...
Satish Chandra Kudesia Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1368
Brijesh Kumar, A.C.J. and Jagdish Bhalla, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the notice dated 29.6.1995, contained In Annexure-12 to the writ petition and the order through which the same has been served by the Jal Nigam upon the petitioner on June 30, 1995.2. So far the prayer for quashing of Annexure-6 dated 28.11.1989 is concerned, namely, the order of punishment inflicted by the U. P. Jal Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that since the appeal against the said order of punishment is already pending, second prayer is not pressed. Once a matter is receiving attention of the appellate authority, it is only appropriate that the petitioner must wait for the decision of the said authority.3. So far the show cause notice dated 29.6.1995 is concerned, it has been issued by the State Government under Rule 69 of U. P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. According to the said notice, the State Governme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »