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.
Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Technical Director, Mahadeo Fertilizers Ltd., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1496; [1999(82)FLR542]; (1999)2UPLBEC1134
D. K. Seth, J.1. Shri P. K. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mahadeo Fertilizers Ltd, is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such, its action in terminating the petitioner's services cannot be Justified since the principle of natural Justice and equality has not been observed. He relied on the decision in the case of M. C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 1086 :1987 (1) SCC 895, particularly paragraph 28 in order to contend that the respondent company is an agency and instrumentality of the State by reason of the ingredients pleaded in the writ petition.2. Only pleading that are available in the record is that the company is registered company under the Companies Act and it receives subsidies from the Central Government and the State Government. Pursuant to certain policies of the Government, subsidies are made available even to private entrepreneurs. Availability of subsidies in the process of carr...
Krishna Bihari Sharma Vs. Sri Shaligram Pathak Intermediate College Ve ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2468
D.K. Seth, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Sri Shaligram Pathak Intermediate College Vetan Bhogi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. appears to be a co-operative society of teachers and other staff employed in the said college. The said society has been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act.2. The petitioner claims himself to be the Secretary of the said society. He claims that he is a permanent teacher in the said school since, 1972.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.P. Gupta, submits that since the Secretary has been appointed under Section 31 of the Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is governed by the statutory provisions of Section 31 of the said Act by reason thereof the Co-operative Society in regard to petitioner's service as Secretary is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution though Co-operative Society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court.4. Shri K.R. Singh, learned standing...
Survey Kanoongo Sangh, Kaimoor Sarvekshan Bandobast Agency, Sonbhadra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2375; (1999)2UPLBEC1426
D.K. Seth, J.1. Mr. Sheo Nath Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an interesting but simple point in this writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in the directive principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India in terms of Article 39(d) between Supervisor Kanoongo on one hand and the Survey Kangoongo on the other. According to him, the nature of duly performed by Survey Kanoongo and the Supervisor Kanoongo are the same, though the source and mode of recruitment might be different. Therefore, there should be equality in respect of pay of both the posts. He had drawn my attention to various provisions of law and facts as pleaded in the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and other materials on record in order to substantiate his contention.2. Mr. P. M. N. Singh. learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counselon the other hand appearing for the respondents had resisted the content...
Vir Pal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2791
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25-5-1978 passed by Sri Girish Chandra, the then Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 25-5-1978 in S.T. No. 490 of 1975, whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Vir Pal and Rama Kant of the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years each.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A.3. In this case, as per the report of the District Judge, the entire record of the trial Court has been burnt in a fire in the judgeship and that it could not be reconstructed though an effort was made to do the same. All that is available to this Court is the certified copy of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the appellants has claimed that in the absence of the record of the trial Court, the conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be maintained and that it is such a case in which the rem...
Dhirendra Singh Chauhan and Others Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1892
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners were given training as vaccinatora. Admittedly, there are 14 vacant posts of vaccinators in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The petitioners claim thatthe said 14 posts were advertised and the petitioners participated in the selection. But no selection was made nor result of the said selection declared and the petitioners were not given appointment. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 8.11.1993 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation. Accordingly, their representation was considered by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, who instead of passing an order applying his own mind, had only endorsed the note or report prepared by the subordinate. Against such rejection of their representation by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioners further preferred a representation before the Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 23.4.1996 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The order of Mukhya ...
Sabal Mazdoor Manch and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ481All
P.C. Verma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated February 15, 1992 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. It was not explained as to when the dispute arose whether the Trade Union was registered or not. Now the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the Trade Union was not registered. In this case the reference has been rejected and it has been provided in the impugned order that individual workmen may raise their grievance.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 4-K of the U.P.I.D. Act a reference to the Labour Court can be made in case of apprehended dispute or existing dispute. In the impugned order it has been found that the dispute is existing but at the time when the dispute arose the Trade Union was not in dispute, therefore, the existence of dispute was very much there and that is why the State Government gave liberty to the individual workmen to raise their disp...
Neelabh Prakashan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999All208
Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. This Court has heard these matters at length since 24 February, 1999 on different dates. Various counsel of the petitioners have been heard. Those who addressed the Court are Messrs. Sunil Ambwani, Tarun Agarwal, Madhur Prasad and Ravi Kant; on behalf of the State respondents, learned Advocate General and the Chief Standing Counsel.2. The petitioners vehemently prayed that the Court grant a stay order on the Government Order dated 1-12-1998 which has been issued pendente lite the matters pending at the Supreme Court. It is contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh itself was the appellant at the Supreme Court and these Government Orders should not have been issued. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by these petitioners that in similar cases another Hon'ble Division Bench has from time to time passed ad interim orders in writ petitions as and when filed, staying the Government Orders by rendering them inapplicable against a petitioner. It is contended ...
Sadanand Pandey Vs. Managing Director, Utter Pradesh Export Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1243
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner alleges the he was originally employed in the Directorate of Industries, Handicrafts Division, Kanpur. Subsequently his services were placed at the disposal of the respondent No. 1, U.P. Export Corporation Limited, Kanpur. Initially his service with the respondent No. 4, Director of Industries, Handicrafts Division was terminated, which, however, was alleged to be withdrawn. Ultimately the said order of termination was withdrawn and then the petitioner was confirmed as a Store Keeper. Despite such order dated 18th November, 1988, the petitioner rendered the service with the Corporation and he was even promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the Corporation. Subsequently, he was further promoted in the year 1978 as Assistant Executive in the Corporation. He was, thereafter, again promoted to the post of Deputy Executive of the said Corporation. The petitioner claims that he had been on deputation during all the period with the Corporation. Therefore, accor...
Mukul Kumar Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1238
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners was allowed to appear in a selection test held on 23-4-1989 conducted by the respondents upon relaxation of Recruitment Rules pursuant to a settlement between its workmen and the respondents in terms of an order passed by the Apex Court as stated in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleges that he was successful in the test and had qualified for appointment but in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner had admitted that he did not qualify in the test held on 23-4-1989. On the other hand, in the rejoinder affidavit it was claimed that the petitioner was given another opportunity, in which he had appeared and succeeded in the written test, as a result thereof, he was called on to appear in the typing test. In the rejoinder-affidavit it is pleaded that the petitioner hopes that he had been successful in the typing test and therefore should be given appointment. On this background, Mr. G.R. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner cont...
Mool Chandra Gupta Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional Ci ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1350
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order declaring vacancy dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer-respondent No. 1.2. Respondent No. 2, on 24.10.1997, moved an application before respondent No. 1 Intimating vacancy purporting to be under Section 15 (1) and (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegations that on the ground floor of house in dispute, one Amar Nath was a tenant of one room. He vacated it in the year. 1989. The petitioner, thereafter, occupied it without any allotment order. Respondent No. 1 directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. He submitted report dated 15.11.1997 that one Amar Nath was a tenant and on his vacation, the petitioner occupied it without any allotment order though he has obtained a rent receipt from the landlord to establish that he is living as a tenant. The petitioner filed objections to the said report, it was contended that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »