Allahabad Court November 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.
imran Alias Abdul Quddus Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1328
ORDER1. The neat point for determination in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether a bona fide student of Master of Arts can be dubbed as 'Goonda' primarily for the reason that he adopted an agitational approach to espouse the cause of the students of the college with a view to get the memorandum of their demand accepted by the college authorities. The thumb nail sketch of the case is as follows :Imram alias Abdul Quddus Khan, a student of Master of Arts in Bundelkhand College, Jhansi has been issued a show cause notice by Sri Bhagwat Prasad Misra, District Magistrate Jhansi under the provisions of Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 (Act No. VIII of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') case No. 65 of 1999. This show cause notice has been challenged on the ground that it has been issued by the District Magistrate on insufficient and perfunctory material and there has been total non-application of mind to the stringent provisions...
Aslam Khan Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4959
ORDER1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order dated 22-7-1999 passed against him by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Jyotiba Phuley Nagar, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act and his continued detention thereunder.2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. We have heard Mr. D.S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Shesh Mani Misra representing respondent No. 4 - Union of India.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order on the ground that there was inordinate delay in sending the petitioner's representation dated 7-8-1999 to the Central Government which was received there on 24-8-1999.4. We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on this point.5. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jailor district Jail, Moradabad in his c...
Dr. A.K. Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)73ITD49(All.)
1. This is a 1st appeal by the assessee under section 253(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brief), against the order dated 30th of September, 1997 rendered by the Ld.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Allahabad, under section 158-BC/143(3) of the Act for the block period 1-4-86 to 14-9-96.2. The first ground which has been taken by the assessee and which is in the nature of a serious preliminary ground challenging the very jurisdiction of the assessing officer in making the assessment is proposed to be disposed of firstly, runs as under : "Because the search operation cannot be said to have been validly initiated on 14-9-96 in the case of the appellant, as there existed no material (prior to the authorisation) which could lead to the formation of belief that his case fell in any of the 3 categories mentioned in Section 132(1) of the Act and consequently the block assessment order passed in pursuance of such proceedings is wholly i...
Abhai Kumar Rai Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC427
Palok Basu and S.K. Jain, JJ. 1. It is a strange case where an innocent citizen living in interior of an underdeveloped village is being deprived of his agricultural land on the ground of establishing an irrigation canal but compensation has not been paid to him since the year 1981. Petitioner has to rush up to this Court for the second time even though the first order dated 29.11.1996 directed the payment of the compensation to be made expeditiously vide orders in Writ Petition No. 37926 of 1996 quoted in paragraph 3 of the instant writ petition. When this writ petition wasfiled before this Court, a counter-affidavit was called because the pleadings were on the part of an helpless innocent citizen. While calling the counter affidavit. therefore, an interim mandamus was also issued which was to the following effect :'An interim mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to grant the compensation to the petitioner within one month from today and release the compensation amount to the ...
Rajesh Mohan Sukhla and Another Vs. Union of Indian and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC548; (2000)1UPLBEC493
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard Sri K.B. Mathur for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Dwivedi for the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioners are youth coordinators and their prayer is to grant equal pay and allowances and other benefits which are being given to other youth coordinators on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. It may be mentioned that Nehru Yuva Kendra originally was controlled by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Youth Affairs and Sport of the Central Government. The petitioners' appointments were made in the said Scheme. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not paid the same salaries, allowances and other benefits as are being given to the coordinators appointed by the Central Government whereas they are discharging the same functions. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit, rather it has been admitted in para 21 of the counter-affidavit. The only difference in the two categories is in the mode o...
Suraj Bali Katiyar (Decd) Through L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC634; (2000)1UPLBEC482
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to the question as to whether an enquiry conducted by the Administrative Tribunal against the judicial officer, an order of deduction of 50% of pension under Rule 351A of Civil Services Regulations read with Rule 28 of U. P. Judicial Officers Services Rules, can be passed by the Governor of the State.2. Before dealing with this question, it is pertinent to have a glance over the factual matrix of the case as set out in the writ petition bythe deceased petitioner Suraj Ball Katiyar, who expired on 26.4.1987 and in his place his wife, three sons and two daughters were substituted as petitioners.3. Late Shri Suraj Bali Katiyar was appointed as a Judicial Officer under the provisions of U. P. Judicial Officers Services Rules, 1948, in the year 1955. On 30th September, 1967 in pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Articles 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor was pleased to order the publication of Notific...
Smt. Kusum Agarwal Vs. Smt. Uma Rani Misra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1183
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. These two special appeals have been filed against the Judgment of learned single Judge dated 20.9.1996 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3707 (S/S) of 1992 and 3746 (S/S) of 1993 by a common judgment.2. The facts of the case, in brief. are as under :The Principal of the Vedic Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Lucknow. Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava retired with effect from 1.7.1987 and the senior most Lecturer of the college Smt. Vimla Tandon, was promoted as Principal of the college on ad hoc basis. Consequently, the post of permanent Lecturer in History, on which Smt. Vimla Tandon was teaching fell vacant. This was a short term vacancy because Smt. Vimla Tandon was promoted on the post of Principal of the college only on ad hoc basis and she continued to retain her Hen on the post of Lecturer History. On 22.1.1988 the short-term vacancy of the post of Lecturer (History) was advertised. The appellant Smt. Kusum Agarwal, the petitioner-respondent, Smt. Uma Rani Misra, one Smt. ...
Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC406; (2000)1UPLBEC729
Palok Basu, J.1. Petitioner SanjayKumar Singh has come to this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitutionof India with the prayer that theimpugned order dated30.6.1997/1.7.1997 passed by the U.P. Public Service Commission,Allahabad (for short Commission),copy of which has been filed asAnnexure-XI to this petition.2. Sanjay Kumar Singh is shuttling between good and bad luck, good for the favourable result in the P.C.S. examination declared in his favour by the Commission, and bad because by the impugned order that result stood cancelled. Again good because by an interim order one post has been kept reserve which continues till date.3. Petitioner's forefatherbelonged to Old Ngaulaong, VillagePost Office Peren. B.P.O. Tening.District Kohima. Nagaland andbelongs to a sect known as ZemeNaga amongst Naga Tribe citizens.This Naga Tribe is a Scheduled Tribein Tening Nagaland and a certificateto that effect was issued to thepetitioner (Annexure-1). TheAdditional Deputy Commissioner.Peren, Nagal...
Babu Lal Vs. Brij Gopal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC485
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The defendant's second appeals against the partition decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by subordinate appellate court.2. The following relevant pedigree will make position clear as regards the rights of the parties in the property in dispute : Ghasi Ram Widow-Maharani | ___________________________ | | (Daughter) (Daughter) Vidya Bai Bunda Bai | (Son) Brij Gopal (Plaintiff)3. Ghasi Ram had purchased the property in dispute from one Lala Gopal. He died leaving behind him his widow Maharani and two daughters, namely, Vidya Bai and Bunda Bai. On death of Maharani. her two daughters inherited the property in dispute. Bunda Bai died sometimes in the year 1950. She was succeeded by her son Brij Gopal.4. Brij Gopal filed Suit No. 64 of 1991 for partition against Babu Lal. Ram Kishan and Mahipat on the allegations that Maharani died leaving behind her two daughters. They equally Inherited the rights in the property in question. He is son of Bunda Bai and is entit...
Abdul Rahman Jafri Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC528
D.R. Chaudhary, J.1. The petitioner, Abdul Rahman Jafri, a Class III employee in the Family Court, Allahabad has instituted the present writ petition seeking issuanceof writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of the order dated 22.12.1999 (Annexure-5) whereby the second respondent has ordered that the petitioner 'shall be charged under Sections 161 and 165A of I.P.C.'.2. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the petition was entertained initially by a single Judge Bench but on an application moved by the complainant Dr. Lal Bahadur, the Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble M. Katju, J., by order dated 13.9.99 directed that the matter be placed before a Bench presided over by one of us (S. R. Singh. J.) and it was pursuant to the said order that the matter was listed before this Bench.3. We have heard Shri S. S. Tyagt for the petitioner and Government Advocate for State and Dr. Lal Bahadur, the complainant who appeared in person.4. It t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »