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.
Sunil Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. Chairman, Muzaffar Nagar Kshetirya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC556; (2000)1UPLBEC82
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Petitioners have challenged the seniority list and relief in respect of their seniority position.2. Contentions have been made in the writ petition that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1985 as Field Supervisors and respondent Nos. 4 to 17 (hereinafter referred as private respondents) were appointed as Officers in the year 1989. At the time of appointment of petitioners, their service conditions were governed by Muzaffar NagarKshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1984 and in terms of definition of 'Officer' Field Supervisors and Officers both were included and, therefore, they belong to the same cadre. Relevant two seniority lists dated 1.6.1992. one for Field Supervisor and other for Officers have been annexed to the writ petition at Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. After the Circular dated 25.3.1991 was issued following the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, the posts of Field Supervisors and Officers were merged with effec...
Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai and Co., Naini, Allahabad Vs. State of U. P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC967; [2000(84)FLR206]; (2000)ILLJ1171All; (2000)1UPLBEC530
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Thepetitioner carries on business ofmanufacturing Biri and is a registeredpartnership firm. It has beencontended in the writ petition that thepetitioner appointed contractors forsupplying Tendu leaf and tobacco forthe purpose of rolling Biri to variouspersons in their residences and saidpersons after having rolled Birisupply the same to the Contractorswho in turn brings the same to thefactory of the petitioner which isultimately sold as finished product.The petitioner was served withnotices contending that in survey, itwas found that thepetitioner/contractors had engagedchild labour in violation of provisionscontained In the Child Labour(Prohibition and Regulation) Act,1986. The notices were challenged Inwrit petition No. 17034 of 1998. M/s.Chhota Bhai Munna Bhai andCompany v. State of U. P. and others.The Division Bench allowed the writpetition by order dated 11.11.1998and quashed the notices challenged.In the said judgment, various findingshave been arrived at...
Smt. Nirmal Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1046; (2000)1UPLBEC86
A. K. Yog, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognized Junior High School, which was upgraded to High School and Intermediate level. Detailed facts have been mentioned in the writ petition. Institution (Kunwar Ranjit Singh Inter College, Nagariya Parikshit, Air Force, Bareilly) was getting grant-in-aid and the provisions of U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act. 1971, are applicable to it.2. Petitioner received her salary when the College came on grant-in-aid list in 1994 and she was paid until impugned order dated August 9. 1995 (Annexure-lV to the writ petition) and consequential order dated August 31. 1995 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) were passed.3. Petitioner has passed High School and IntermediateExaminations of -U. P. Board. Allahabad'. She also passed 'Madhyama' (Intermediate level). Sahitya Ratna (B. A. level) as well as Shiksha Visharad Examinations, [said to be equivalent to B.Ed.) ...
S.C. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(All)421
1. These are three applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, be directed to state a case and refer the following identical question stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated September 29, 1995, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 3806, 3807 and 3808/Del of 1993, for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the addition of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 30,000 each in the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 could be made merely on the basis of the statement tendered during the survey without there being any documentary evidence or material suggesting such income ?'2. We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing cou...
Dr. S.C. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]248ITR782(All)
These are three applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, be directed to state a case and refer the following identical question stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunals order dated 29-9-1995, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 3806, 3807 and 3808/Del of 1993, for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the addition of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 30,000 each in the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 could be made merely on the basis of the statement tendered during the survey without there being any documentary evidence or material suggesting, such income ?'We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati,. Learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the C...
Private Secretaries/Personal Assistants Brotherhood and Another Vs. St ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC457; (2000)1UPLBEC357
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. 'Separation of powers' amongst three limbs of the State, the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary in all hall marks of the Constitution of India, which is held to be 'basic structure' of India. 'The edifice of the Constitution is based on 'separation of powers'. If the Independence of each limb of the State, in any way is affected, there would be a break down of the Constitution.2. With this prelude, we have to examine the case of the Private Secretaries of this Court, who are drawing the pay scale of Class 1 Officer, i.e., Rs. 10,000-15,200 and staked the claim in the present writ petition for being provided the telephone connections at their residence.3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the year 1988 the State Government decided that the employees of the State Government would be given the pay scale available to the corresponding status employees under the Central Government. In order to execute the said decision an Equivalence Committee was constitut...
Devi Sharan Sharma Vs. District Magistrate, Meerut and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC510; [2000(84)FLR488]; (2000)1UPLBEC582
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1976 as peon in Collectorate, Meerut. He was regularised/confirmed with effect from 1.8.1972. Since he was a class IV employee, his age of superannuation was sixty year. His date of birth being 28.4.1940. he was due to retire in August, 2000. He was suspended on 28.2.1985 and remained under suspension till 18.3.1985. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service. An adverse entry was awarded to him on 25.6.1985. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 26.11.1991 compulsorlly retired the petitioner. Itis this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.2. I have heard Miss Rollie Kauser, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Rai, brief holder. State of Uttar Pradesh appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the basis of one adverse entry the petitioner could not be retired compulsorlly and there was nothing against the petitioner from the year 1986 to 1991. On the other ...
P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC504; (2000)1UPLBEC89
Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 1. The order dated 4.7.1997 at Annexure-6 to the writ petition passed under the order of Governor on the basis of recommendation made by the High Court removing the petitioner from service, has been challenged. Supplementary affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been filed.2. Heard Mr. Ravikant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the respondent High Court.3. Facts stated in the writ petition relevant for its disposal are that the petitioner while was posted as Additional District Judge was served with a charge-sheet and a disciplinary proceeding was thus initiated. Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 29.11.1995. After holding inquiry in the said disciplinary proceeding report was submitted 9.9.1996. According to the inquiry report, the charges 1 (i) partly, 1 (ii), 1, (iii), partly. 1 (viii). 2 (i), partly. 2 (ii), 2 (iii). 2 (iv) and 3 to 9 had been established against the petitioner...
Bareilly Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. U.P. State Electricity ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC913
G. P. Mathur, J.1. This petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for the following reliefs :1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certlorari calling for the record and quashing the proceedings initiated under assessment order dated 1.9.1999 ;2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondentsnot to assess or realise any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of the assessment order dated 1.9.1999 which in turn is based on the alleged ex parts checking report dated 23.8.1999 :or in alternative3. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents that the assessment proceedings in the present case be finalised by the Executive Engineer posted sutside Bareilly.2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Bareilly Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and it has established a unit in village Zerh Tehsil Faridpur in the district of Bareilly. It ha...
Nidhi Singh Vs. Chairman, C.P.M.T. 99, Roorkee and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC908
O.P. Garg, J.1. Km. Nidhi Singh, a resident of Allahabad appeared in Combined Pre-Medical Test, 1999 (for Short 'CPMT') conducted by University of Roorkee. Roorkee. An admit card was issued to her bearing Roll No. 511694. She appeared on 11.7.1999 at St. Fidelis College, Vikas Nagar, P.O. Vishnupuri Colony. Church Road, Lucknow, which was her centre for CPMT. She was unsuccessful as per result declared by the respondent No. 1.2. The case of the petitioner is that she had obtained 489 marks while the candidates, belonging to the general category and obtaining minimum 462 marks, have been called for counselling, which had commenced from 5.9.1999 for admission to M.B.B.S. 1st year course. According to the petitioner, though she was entitled for counselling and admission in the M.B.B.S. 1st Year course, the respondent No. 1 Chairman CPMT-99, CPMT, Examination Centre. University of Roorkee, Roorkee, has issued a letter dated 14/16.8.1999 cancelling her test for the alleged adoption of unfai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »