Allahabad Court March 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.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Unit Chhitauni, Deoria Vs. Presidin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1777
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court. U.P. Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 75 of 1997 under Section 33C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) as well as further recovery proceedings in pursuance thereof have been challenged primarily on the ground that the award dated 28.3.1984 passed in favour of respondent No. 5 Virendra Pratap Singh is not enforceable against the petitioner as it was not a party to the Adjudication Case No. 11 of 1982.2. On behalf of workman. respondent No. 5, Virendra Pratap Singh a caveat has been filed by Sri S.S. Rathore, who has made his submissions at the initial state of the filing of this writ petition. Sri Rathore urged that he does not want to file any counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 5 and that this writ petition be decided on the basis of the material brought on record by the petitioner.3. Heard...
ElgIn Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR25]; (2001)IIILLJ132All; (1999)2UPLBEC1147
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. A reference as to whether a workman represented by respondent No. 3 was the workman of the petitioner company or of the contractor and whether the said workman should be considered to be holding a post as given in the schedule and, if so from which date is pending before the learned III Labour Court, Kanpur. In the meantime, an application was made by these workmen under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of; Wages) Act, 1978. In the said proceeding an objection was taken by the petitioner that the same is not maintainable since the authority discharging jurisdiction under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, cannot enter into a dispute which is within the purview of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court particularly when such a dispute is pending. According to Mr. V.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be pre- empting the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and therefore the decision with regard to the character of the workmen...
Kanwar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd., Kanpur Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1408; (1999)2UPLBEC877
O.P. Jain, J. 1. The above four writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment because the facts and the legal questions involved in them are identical. These writ petitions, which are a bunch of writ petitions, arise out of Land Acquisition proceedings and the prayer in each case is to quash the Notification under Section 4(1) and under Section 6 ID of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter called the Act). The facts are being stated with reference to Writ Petition No. 201 of 1998.2. Kanpur Development Authority (K.D.A.) prepared an ambitious scheme for the plan development of Kanpur City and virtually a new City is to be established and, therefore, the scheme is known as 'New Kanpur City'. For the creation of New Kanpur City, the land is sought to be acquired in seven villages named in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by K.D.A. for the first phase of the establishment of New Kanpur City, 511 hectares of land is required out of which 39 hectares of land bel...
Fattan Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2115
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1978 passed by Sri K. D. Shahi, the then learned IVth Additional District Judge. Lucknow confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21.4.1975 passed by Munsif South. Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 244 of 1970. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration that the removal order dated 1/2-12.1966 passed by the defendant No. 2 Assistant Security Officer. R. P. F.. Alambagh, Lucknow be declared null and void and the plaintiff be declared to be deemed in service. Besides this relief, the plaintiff-appellant has also prayed for recovery of Rs. 1,500 as arrears of salary and other allowances. The trial court as well as the first appellate court have decided the suit and the first appeal respectively against the plaintiff who was Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this second appeal. 4. I ...
Ram Pyare and Others Vs. Special Judge, Basti and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1464a
P.K. Jain, J. 1. Learned counsel for the' petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 have been heard at length. The petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. Short question raised in this petition is whether without the decree-holder moving an application, under Order XXI. Rule 97 (1) C.P.C., objections raised by the third party resisting the execution of the decree, can be heard or not.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents 3 and 4, Sita Ram and Ram Das, had obtained a decree for possession in respect of certain immovable properties against respondents 5 to 8. While the decree was put in execution, the petitioners alleged to be in possession of the part of the land under the decree. The petitioners were not party to the suit and there was no decree against them. The decree-holders moved an application under Order XXI, Rule 35 C.P.C, before the executing Court for getting the possession delivered with the aid of the police. The petitioners fil...
Chanda Khan and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4107
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision against an order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the then Vlth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 2171/IX/96, State v. Chanda Khan and 13 others relating to case Crime No. 9 of 1996, under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, whereby he rejected the application of the accused-revisionists that the cognizance of the case by him was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The relevant portion of Section 195, Cr.P.C. is as under :-195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to docufhents given in evidence; (1) No Court shall take cognizance :-(a) (i) to (b) (i)....(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence...
Tej Pal Singh Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C., Agra and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1244
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. C. Tripathi. learned standing counsel. As the petition can be disposed of on a short question of law, learned counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.2.1999 by which petitioner has been suspended from the post of A.S.I. (M) for the allegations mentioned in the order that he made unwarranted comments against superior authorities and indulged in dialogue with them and this way had shown disobedience to his superior authorities. At the end of the order in para 3, Sher Singh, Assistant Commandant had been directed to hold a preliminary inquiry and submit a report within a week.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Rule 17 of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the order of suspension can be passed ...
Mohammad Idris and Baboo Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1627
N.K. Mitra, C.J. and S.R. Singh, J.-1. Heard Sri M.M.D. Agarwal for the appellants and Shri R. N. Singh for the respondents.2. The appointment of the fifth respondent Mohd. Tariq, as Principal H. M. S. Inter College, Etawah was sought to be cancelled under Section 16E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The State Government rejected the representation preferred by the petitioners and maintained the appointment of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment under challenge in this appeal holding, inter alia, that the selection committee had considered the academic qualifications, experience certificates and other relevant materials in respect of all the candidates and then recommended the name of the fifth respondent for appointment.3. Sri R. N. Singh raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition itself was not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner in that non...
Raj Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4101
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J. 1. This revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 9-2-99 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 305 of 1999.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.3. It appears that a charge sheet was received against the applicant, which was submitted on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party No. 2 for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. On the basis of that charge sheet by the impugned order the case was registered and the applicant was summoned by non-bailable warrant returnable by 9-2-99. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the order has been passed without application of mind for the fact whether any offence has been committed. That before the issue of process, there must be prima facie satisfaction of the learned Magistrate regarding commission o...
Vinod S/O Ram Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3729
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Appellant Vinod and his father Ram Singh were charged under Sections 302, IPC and 302 read with Section 34, IPC respectively for committing' murder of one Prem Pal on 1-5-79 in village Aniwas PS. Anoop Shahar, district Bulandshahr. '2. The prosecution story as narrated in the written report lodged by Sri Chandra on 1-5-79 ' at 2.10 p.m. is that there was mango tree in the field of Ram Singh Jatwa which was at the relevant time on 'Adh Batai' with the complainant. The brother of the complainant was watching the mango tree, he plucked some mangoes from the tree which was objected to by appellant Vinod, who is son of Ram Singh. Vinod slapped Shiv Shankar and at that time Prem Pal who had gone to ease himself reached there. He gave one slap to Vinod. Thereafter Vinod ran to nearby hut and picked up spear telling his father to accompany as Prem Pal has to be killed. On seeing Vinod and Ram Singh Prem Pal ran towards 'Jai' field of Ram Singh where Ram Singh caught hold o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »