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.
Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Kanpur and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC727; (1999)2UPLBEC872
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.8.1987 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Vth, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 149/F/V/198}. Thakur Prasad v. State of V. P. and others, whereby it had allowed the claim petition of Thakur Prasad, conductor (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) of the U.P.S.R.T.C, against the order dated 22,9.1978 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager (C.B.S.). Kanpur removing him from service as conductor of the U.P.S.R.T.C, and the order dated 13.2.1979 passed by the Regional Manager. U.P.S.R.T.C, dismissing his appeal and quashedboth the orders and further ordered that he shall be deemed to continue in service with consequential benefits of pay and allowances etc.2. Heard counsel for the parties. The charges against the said conductor Thakur Prasad were that on 15.4.1978 while conducting Bus No. U.S.F. 2654, on a surprise checking raid made by the Traffic Superint...
Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC741
O.P. Jain, J. 1. This is a revision against order dated 7th October, 1998 (Annexure-I) passed by IIIrd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ghaziabad, who has rejected an application filed by the accused for recall of summoning order.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 2 M/s. Tara Chand and Company filed a complaint against accused persons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused issued a cheque on 30th May, 1997, for a sum of rupees two lacs which was drawn on Punjab National Bank. Respondent No. 2 presented the cheque on 30th August, 1997, to his Bank, Union Bank of India, but it was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank on 1st of September, 1997. The complainant was informed of the dishonour of the cheque on 3rd September, 1997. On 10th September, 1997, respondent No. 2 issued notices to revisionist No. 1 M/s. Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. and its Officers, who are revisionist Nos. 2 to 5. In spite of notice dated 10th September. 1997,...
ilam Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC829; [1999(82)FLR470]
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Mr. S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 18th November, 1998 contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition on two-fold grounds. The first is that the alleged misconduct is not related to the petitioner's employment or during the course of discharge of duty in relation to his employment and, therefore, it cannot be brought within the purview of misconduct in employment so as to invite disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules. The second is that the order of suspension was issued by the disciplinary authority at the behest of his superior without application of mind and as such, cannot be sustained. In connection with the second contention. Mr. Khan had relied on the decision in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan, v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400, while he was relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd., v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others. AIR 1984 SC...
Mst. Fakhrun and Others Vs. Hafizullah Alias Kalloo and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2083
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 certiorari quashing the order dated 29.3.1982, whereby trial court allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents for substitution after setting aside the abatement and the order dated 5.8.1982, whereby revision filed by the petitioners against the order of trial court was dismissed by the revisional court.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit forpossession against late Sajjad Ali, father of the petitioners. During pendency of the said suit Sajjad died on 14.5.1974. An application to substitute his heirs (petitioners) was filed on 19.7.1974, i.e., within the time prescribed for the same. The said application was, however dismissed for default and the suit was dismissed as to have abated on 17.10.1975. Thereafter, the contesting respondents ...
Anita Tyre Retreading Works Vs. the City Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1874
ORDER1. The petitioner assails an order passed by the City Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 1/11 of 1988, under Section 133 IPC, P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar (as contained in Annexure 12) overruling its objection that he has no jurisdiction to decide the proceedings. In doing so the learned Magistrate has placed reliance on a judgment/order dated 2-3-1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3028 of 1986 Nagar Juna Paper Mills Limited v. Sub Divisional Magistrate.2. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that Sri Shyam Singh Yadav, City Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar who has passed the impugned order lacked jurisdiction to pass it inasmuch as he was not vested with any powers under Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and that at any rate the powers having been conferred on a Judicial Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. he lacks authority to decide the proceeding.3. ...
Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1883
O.P. Jain, J.1. This is a revision against: order dated 7th October, 1998 (Annnexure-1) passed by IIIrd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, who has rejected an application-filed by the accused for recall of summoning order.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 2 M/s. Tarachand and Company filed a complaint against accused persons sender Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused issued a cheque on 30th May, 1997 for a sum of rupees two lacs which was drawn on Punjab National Bank. Respondent: No. 2 presented the cheque on 30th August, 1997 to his Bank, Union Bank of India, but it was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank on 1st of September, 1997. The complainant was informed of the dishonor of the cheque on 3rd September, 1997. On 10th September, 1997 respondent No. 2 issued notices to revisionist No, I M/s Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. and its Officers, who are revisionists Nos. 2 to 5. In spite of notice dated 10th September, 1997 th...
Binod Chandra Varma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC731; (1999)2UPLBEC865
M. Katju, J.1. Sri S. D. Kautilya has appeared for the Nagar Nigam. Allahabad and may file counter-affidavit within three weeks. List this petition in the week commencing 8th February, 1999.2. This petition has been filed as a Public interest litigation praying that the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad be directed to keep the area of Mohalla Krishna Nagar (Kydganj), Allahabad clean and repair the sewer lines, etc. and stop the keeping and tying of animals on the street. It is indeed true that in several localities of Allahabad, there is filth and garbage which has piled up causing inconvenience to the passer-by and lot of diseases and health hazards. It is common knowledge that nowhere cleaning of the roads, garbage and sewer is done in Allahabad by the Nagar Nigam, although there are about 1,800 permanent employeesand 800 casual labourers working in the Nagar Nigam for this purpose, but they do not work and if they are told to work, they threaten to go on strike. For payment of salaries of thes...
Jagdish Prasad Srivastava Vs. Xth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC733
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.1988 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 28.11.1990 allotting the accommodation in question to respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.2. The facts in brief are thatfather of the petitioner was tenant of the disputed accommodation. He built up his own house No. 124/120. C-Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. An application was filed by the landlord for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that Sundar Lal Srivastava, the tenant having built his own house and having shifted there, the accommodation in question be declared as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after making aninquiry found that Sundar Lal Srivastava had built up his own house No. 124/120, C-Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and having shifted there, the accommodation in question is vacant. The application for r...
Mohd. Anwar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC911
D. K. Seth, J.1. The prayer (i) made in the writ petition seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to follow the mandamus issued by this Court In another case described therein is wholly misconceived. There cannot be a mandamus for commanding the respondents to obey the mandamus issued in another case. Mandamus is a direct order or direction issued by the Court to a person who is bound to comply with the same. Non-compliance thereof attracts the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act or those of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a fresh mandamus, directing a person to comply with the mandamus already issued to him. Such a concept would be contrary to the concept of issue of writ which are direct orders or directions issued to a person in the form of command. In disobedience of a command, a fresh command need not be Issued. Disobedience of a command invites consequence of disobedience not a fresh command. therefore, the prayer (i) cannot be allowed.2. The lear...
Satya NaraIn Singh Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC611; [1999(81)FLR567]; (1999)2UPLBEC939
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Theworkman has challenged the impugned award whereby penalty imposed upon the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding was not interfered.2. The employer-respondent filed a counter-affidavit.3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that two contentions have come up for consideration.4. The points argued for consideration are whether punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges levelled and whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the provision of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act as was sought for on behalf of the workman and was refused by the Tribunal.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case in respect of an incident dated 26.8.1969 charge-sheet was issued on 27.8.1969 and uponcompleting a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and hence his services were dispensed with. On a dispute having been referred to at the instance of the petitioner, reference was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »