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.
Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1373
S.R. Singh, J. 1. The question that surfaces for determination in this petition is whether the petitioner, who happens to be the grandson of a Government servant, who died in harness, can stake claim for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules. 19742. It is beyond the pale of controversy that petitioner's father, namely, Sri Lallu Ram predeceased Prahalad, the grandfather of the petitioner. Prahalad admittedly was working as Godown Chaukidar in the office of 4th respondent, i.e., the Senior Marketing Inspector, Maudaha, district Hamirpur and he was the only member eking out a living for the family. It would appear that the aforesaid Prahalad was spirited away by death while in harness on 10.6.1997. It would further appear that Lallu Ram, the father of the petitioner was the only son of Prahalad who as aforestated, predeceased Prahalad 10 years back. The petitioner claimed, he w...
Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1396
Ravi S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel,JJ. 1. This petition has been filed to impugn the order of the District Magistrate, Lalitpur, Annexures-9 and 14 to the writ petition. In effect, the orders restrained the petitioner from carrying out any activity in the forest area, like cutting trees, etc. The petitioner contends that the forest must be demarcated, specifically, and no one has given a finding to this effect that the area in which the petitioner is carrying on his business Is, in fact, the forest area. The District Magistrate, Lalitpur, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in re. T.N. Godavarman Thimmul Kpad v. Union of India, topass his orders. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the District Magistrate, Lalitpur, lacks jurisdiction. The order is also not illegal as it is implementing orders and the judgment of the Supreme Court which, have been passed on the subject matter of forest. The District Magistrate. Lalitpur, has also noticed that he cannot reca...
Mahendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1395
Ravi S. Dhavart and V. P. Goel, JJ. 1. The petitioners seem to have become wiser after the event when amendments were made in 1984, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These amendments made provisions for certa'in additional payment like solatium and an increase in the rate of interest, paid along with compensation. About 15 years after amendments to the Act, the petitioners has an after thought that they could move an application under Section 28A, itself a product of amendment and seek additional payment.2. The petitioners, three sons of late Bhulai Yadav, claim that they have no knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings. The plea of the petitioners is itself inequitable and unclean. The father of the petitioners received an account payee cheque, dated 15 March, 1983 as compensation. On an enquiry from the Court, it was intimated that the petitioners father died in December, 1997. So, any person who may have a locus standi to move an application under Section 28A, and contend t...
Shantanand Chela Shambhu Dev Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1421
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.6.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.2. The brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that a Suit No. 12 was filed under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Section 64 of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the petitioner in respect of plot No. 4/20 area 2 bighas 10 biswa. It was alleged in the said plaint that land in dispute was recorded as bhumidhari land of the petitioner and the Guru of respondent No. 1 (Prabhu Das) has taken wrongful possession of the plot without any consent of the petitioner and without any authority of law and did not vacate the land hence the suit was filed.3. The suit was contested by the contesting respondents that the land in dispute is not in the name of the plaintiff and the land...
Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1426; (1999)2UPLBEC852
O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 28.1.1998 (Annexure-14) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in L.C.A. Nos. 174 to 265 and 267 of 1992 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been challenged.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.3. The respondent Nos. 2 to 94 (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') were engaged as unskilled labourers with the petitioner's establishment, namely, Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner institute') for the past more than 15 years. Though, they were assigned the duties which were being performed by the regular employees of the institute, th...
Thakur Singh and Another Vs. Viith Addl. District and Sessions Judge, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1400
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority dated8.2.1990 allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed shop in favourof the landlord-respondent No. 2 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act).2. The landlord-respondent No. 2 filed an application for release of the disputed shop in the year 1984 on the allegations that he has two sons namely, Anuj Kumar and Atul Kumar. Atul Kumar is carrying on business of general merchandise and his son Anuj Kumar is unemployed. The petitioners are tenants of Shop No. 245, Jawahar Bazar, Pilkhua, district Ghaziabad. It is required for carrying on business by Anuj Kumar. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. The landlord-respondent filed an appeal against the said order. The appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 8.2.1990.3. I have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri...
Anupam Chakravorty Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1467
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court dated 1.5.1995. decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 20.1.1999, affirming the said Judgment in revision.2. The plaintiff-respondents filed Suit No. 274 of 1981 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and other defendants on the ground that the petitioner had sublet the disputed accommodation and made material alterations in the building. The trial court decreed the suit on 1.5.1995. The petitioner preferred a revision and it has been dismissed by therevisional court on 20.1.1999. The version of plain tiff-respondent No. 3 was that the petitioner had inducted Sri. J.N. Mehrotra and Smt. Kamla Chakravorty as partners of the firm M/s. Chakravorty and Company in the year 1972. He again inducted Sri J.L. Tandon as partner in the year 1975 wi...
Brij Behari and Uttam Chand Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Mathura and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1723; (1999)2UPLBEC1081
D.K. Seth, J.1. Sri S. V. Goswami. learned counsel for the respondents had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an appeal is provided under Rule 3 of the U. P. Municipal Servants Appeal Rules. 1967. He had also contested the case on merit on the ground that the order of termination impugned in this writ petition is of termination simpliciter without casting any stigma and the decision not to retain the petitioners is followed by a motive that the petitioners were not fit to be retained in service. The reason for non-retention of the petitioners in service was not a foundation for removal of the petitioner as such it was not a punishment. The word used in the termination being a simple removal, on the ground that there was no necessity of their services, no prejudice was meant to the petitioners since it did not cast any stigma from securing any future employment. Therefore. the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition on m...
Achchey Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3713
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Aggrieved by his conviction for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, 1.P.C., Section 307 read with Section 149,1.P.C., Section 364,1.P.C. and Section 148,1.P.C. and sentences of Imprisonment for Life, seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment, seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and two years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively for each offence vide judgment dated 3-11-80. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Achchey Lal.2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence on the record is as follows :--3. Appellant Achchey Lal is a resident of village Bara Har, P. S. Bewar of District Mainpuri. A loan of Rs. 7,000/- was advanced to him by Brij Raj Singh deceased of this case, who was an employee of the Military department and was getting Rs. 500/- per month as salary. The other victim Jawahar Singh is the nephew of Brij Raj Singh. That money was demanded by Brij Raj Singh from the appellant. The appellant promise to return the same, but did not r...
Ram Chitra Mandir, Phoolpur, Allahabad and Others Vs. State of U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1594
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By means ofaforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U. P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (in short referred to as the Act), claiming to be ultra vires on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation and is discriminatory, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case concerned and to quash the impugned notification dated 21.10.1997 issued by respondent No. 1 and further to quash the notices issued to the respective petitioners by the District Magistrate concerned to the extent it demands tax except that has already been accepted in Form 'S' from the respective petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to coerce the petitioners to pay enhanced tax except what has already been directed to be paid by ea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »