Allahabad Court April 1999 Judgments
Radhika Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2287
S.L. Saraf, J.1. The petitioner who was a Deputy Jailer retired from service on 31.8.1991. For the last eight years, he has not been given any retirement benefit. Inquiry proceedings or cases that have been filed against the petitioner, have also not been completed/concluded so far.Even if some enquiry has beenconcluded, no disciplinaryproceedings have been taken againstthe petitioner. In that view of thematter, I direct the respondentsauthorities to pay all the postretirement benefits including pension,gratuity, leave encashment, providentfund amount, etc., within a period ofthree months from the date of serviceof a certified copy of this order on theauthority concerned.2. It is most unfortunate and it has been seriously noticed by this Court that in a number of cases, the post-retirement benefits of Government employees are withheld by the Department and the pension is not released for a quite long time on one pretext or the other. The Court feels that in all such cases if an inquiry...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Sahu Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ861; I(2001)DMC542
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.5.1984 passed by the learned Magistrate and the order dated 31.8.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. Shayam Narain Gupta opposite party No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant Shankar Sahu alleging that his sister's daughter Lal Mani was married to the accused applicant 11 years back. The applicant turned out Lal Mani from his house and kept her jewellery and clothes, etc. Thereafter the applicant married Shoe Kumari Devi, accused No. 5 on 30.6.1982 though Smt. Lal Mani was still alive and her marriage with the applicant was also subsisting. It was thus alleged that the applicant had committed an offence under Section 494, I.P.C After recording the statement of the complainant and of some witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. the accused applicant was summoned to face trial. Thereafter the complainant led evidence under Section 244, Cr.P.C. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1956; [1999(82)FLR720]
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the employees of Bhadohi Woollens Ltd., a Government company (in brief company) which has been winded up. can be absorbed under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (in brief Rules 1991).2. The company was a 100% State-owned company. Its shares, in entirety, were held by U. P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., Kanpur and U. P. Export Corporation Ltd., Kanpur. In S. S. Verma v. G. M. Elgin Mills. 1989 (2) VPLBEC 179, it was held that even a Government company which is wholly owned and controlled by the State is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Since the company was owned and controlled by the two Government corporations, whose affairs were fully owned and controlled by the State, it was a Government company as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchchid Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1978
Binod Kumar Roy and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Whether inthe peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Collector was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as being barred by limitation? and whether the Collector under Section 18 of the Act has jurisdiction to condone the delay occurred in preference of theapplication for reference? are the two questions for our adjudication in this writ petition.1.1. Firstly the prayers of the petitioner. The petitioner's first prayer is to quash the order dated 17.5.1993 passed by Respondent No. 2 the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organisation). Bulandshahr as contained in Annexure-1 rejecting his application dated 18.8.1992 filed for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of limitation stating that whereas the Award was made on 25.10.1991 and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Prasad Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Banda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2161
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the order dated 21.3.1995 dismissing the petitioner, a head clerk in Adarsh Inter College. Manikpur, district Banda can be maintained.2. The petitioner was suspended, by the authorised controller, on 5/7.12.1989. A charge-sheet dated 9.3.1990 was served upon him. He claims to have submitted his reply. But no steps were taken by the respondents. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 3797 of 1990 questioning the suspension order. The petition was disposed of by this court on 7.12.1994 with direction to disciplinary authority to decide the proceedings within three months in accordance with law.3. The Manager of the college issued notice dated 3.3.1995 to petitioner to file his reply to the charges within seven days as time granted by this Court wax expiring. The petitioner on 13.3.1995 replied that he had already submitted explanation to the authorised controller in 1990. The letter was sent by re...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jagdish and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2363
Palok Basu, J. 1. This bunch of thirty appeals arises out of references filed before the District Judge, Moradabad (for short the D.J.) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (for short the Act) all the first appeals have been filed by U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Moradabad (for short the Parishad) except F. A. No-. 1187 of 1990 which has been filed as a cross-appeal by land owners for enhancement of compensation which has been heard with F.A. No. 706 of 1992 filed by the Parishad. !n some first appeals, land owners have preferred cross-objections reference about which shall be made when individual cases are dealt with. It may be mentioned here that Parishad's F.A. No. 211 of 1996 has been delinked from this bunch as some enquiry appears to be pending against the District Judge raising the compensation for which the record has been requisitioned there. Thus, this bunch consists of 29 appeals by the Parishad and one by land owners.2. A total area of 136.12 acres became th...
Tag this Judgment!Dheeraj Coal Traders Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: AIR1999All333
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. These five revision petitions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act raise identical issues. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In TTR Nos. 65 to 68 of 1999, there is a common revisionist and these petitions relate to assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95.3. In TTR No. 63 of 1999, the revisionist is M/s. Pathak Coal Agency and revision petition relates to assessment year 1982-83.4. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunwar Saxena, Advocate for the revisionist in the first group of revision petitions and Sri Alok Kumar, Advocate for the revisionist in TTR No. 63 of 1999. Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel argued the matters on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax.5. The revisionists are coal merchants. Coal is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which was enacted to provide, in the interest of general public...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ781All
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondents.2. The notice dated December 21, 1990 and citation dated June 21, 1991, photo copies whereof are appended to the petition as Annexures '2' and '5' respectively, are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. By the impugned notice and the citation proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,41,297.72 alleged to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978.4. The contention of the petitioner, in the fore-front, is that the impugned recovery is barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter called the 'Act'. According to the petitioner it is a sick company as contemp...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rizwana Saif Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1416
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved. Subject-matter of dispute and parties are also the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. By means of Writ Petition No.2083 (M/S) of 1998, petitioner prayedfor issuance of a writ, order ordirection in the nature of certiorariquashing order dated 9.9.1998whereby allotment of House No. 7/2,New Badshah Nagar Colony,Nishatganj, Lucknow (for short 'thehouse in dispute') in favour of thepetitioner was cancelled. Prayers fora writ, order or direction in the natureof mandamus commandingrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hand-overphysical possession of the house indispute to the petitioner and torespondent No. 3 to vacate the saidhouse, have also been made.3. By means of W.P. No. 292 (M/S) of 1999, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.1.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting application of ...
Tag this Judgment!Nasir Khan Vs. Collector, Moradabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2190A
D. S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri V. K. Goel the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr. Madhu Tandon learned Brief Holder of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Nobody appears for the Syndicate Bank, the respondent No. 3.2. By means of the impugned citation dated 1st August, 1995, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the petition, the petitioner has been called upon by the respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 8.363, besides collection charges, etc.3. From the averments made In the petition. It appears that the petitioner was granted by the respondent No. 3 overdraft facility against his Account in the Bank under a written agreement between him and the Bank. The limit of overdraft was' fixed at Rs. 7,000.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the money in question cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.5. It is unnecessary to examine the question whether money can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is not disputed that the mone...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »