Allahabad Court April 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.
Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. Additional District Judge, Agra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1519
Shitla Pd. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18.5.1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra and order passed by the Special Judge (Additional District Judge), Agra dated 21.9.1984.2. The facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner claimed himself to be the tenant of the accommodation in question. It was stated by the petitioner that he took that accommodation on rent from the previous landlady Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor, who was living in the same house and he used to pay the rent to her but no rent receipt was ever issued to the petitioner by the landlady. It is stated that at two limes, i.e., in the years 1971 and 1973 when she was away from Agra and stayed at Jaipur due to long illness, the petitioner sent rent of the house in occupation of the petitioner and the electricity charge for nine months and six months respectively by money order, which w...
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. Inspector General of Police, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1644; [1999(82)FLR486]
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was a constable and a censure entry was awarded to him by respondent No. 3 by order dated 31.8.1996.Against the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 5.11.1986. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No. 1 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In the revision, the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 7.1.1997 directed the respondent No. 3 to initiate enquiry proceedings against the petitioner for awarding major punishment.2. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.1.1997, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner's counsel Sri Shashi Nandan is that in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, a categorical statement has been made that the impugned order dated 7.11.1997 was passed by respondent No. 1 without giving any opportun...
Leela Singh and Nanak Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1670
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners quashing the order dated 24.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 617 of 1991.2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners were proposed Chak No. 192 and the respondent No. 2. Dharam Singh, was proposed Chak No. 503 during the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme under the Consolidation of Holdings Act-Petitioner's holdings consist of Plots No. 3605, 3606, 3607, 3608, 3609, 3610, 3611 and 3613. According to the petitioners, the exchange ratio of these plots was 100 paise per hectare. It is stated by the petitioners that these plots, mentioned above.were adjacent to the petitioners' residential house and their ghar was in plot No. 3600. The share of the petitioners was 1/3 in the aforesaid plots. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2, Dharam Singh, had 1/3 share in the pl...
Ram Swarup and Ram Dass Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1665
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of in dia has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 31.8.1981 [Annexure-2 to the petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner. Bareilly Division, Bareilly and order dated 9.7.1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the Board of Revenue and further for relief of writ of mandamuscommanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute on the basis of the Impugned orders of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 or on any other basis.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition as stated by the petitioners are that plot No. 198 measuring 3.25 acres of village Naugawan. Pargana Pooranpur district Pillibhlt was recorded in the basic year khatauni at the time of consolidation in the name of Raghubir Sahal. One Smt. Ram Dulari filed an objection under Section 9A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred...
Smt. Zaitoon Fatima Vs. Director of Education, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1673; (1999)3UPLBEC2136
N.K. Mitra, C.J. and S.R. Singh, J. 1. Present Special Appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 25.9.1998 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24348 of 1995, preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the order contained in the letter dated 6.5.1994 of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in which a reference was made to the Additional Director of Education. Secondary U. P. Allahabad forappropriate action under Section 16E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (in short 'the Act') in respect of initial appointment by promotion of the appellant herein in C.T. grade as well as her subsequent promotion in L.T. grade and till then, the approval to the appellant's promotion to the post of Lecturer (Urdu) has been put on hold by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by the self-same order.2. We have heard Sri P. C. Srivastava, for the appellant, standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ashok Khare for r...
Jag Bhushan Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. State of U. P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1835
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Narain Dubey, holding brief of Sri V. K. Shukla; learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S. G. Husnain, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. representing the respondents.2. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that an amount of Rs. 17.293.71 by way ofsales tax, besides recovery charges, etc., is due from Smt. Vidyawati Jain wife of Sri Jag Bhushan Kumar Jain, the petitioner No. 1 and the proprietor of M/s. Mittal Brothers, and the same is being recovered as arrears of land revenue. In connection with the said recovery, the immovable properties specified in the two sale proclamations (Annexures-'I' and '4' to the petition), which are impugned in this petition have been attached and notified for sale.3. The petitioners assert that the properties in question belong to them and are not liable to attachment and sale. Further allegation of the petitioners is that against the attachment and proposed sal...
Jagdish Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2389
S. C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was a promotee member of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service from the cadre of Judicial Magistrates. At the time of his compulsory retirement with effect from 23.8.1997 by the order of the State Government dated 12.8.1997 oncompletion of his 58 years of age, the petitioner was posted at Aligarh as IInd Additional Sessions Judge.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 12.8.1997 retiring the petitioner compulsorily and has prayed for quashing the said order dated 12.8.1997 as well as the resolution of the Screening Committee dated 10.7.1997. The petitioner has also challenged and prayed for quashing of the annual confidential remarks dated 12.9.1995 awarded to him for the year 1994-95.3. According to the petitioner the impugned action has been taken against him only on the basis of adverse remarks awarded to him for the year 1994-95. The petitioner had earlier challenged the two adve...
Ram Pher Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)3UPLBEC2089
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Misra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 No one appear for remaining respondents.2. An election of Pradhanship was contested between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 8. The petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 12-C (1) of Panchayat Raj Act challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, It appears that during hearing of the election petition a prayer was made before the learned S.D.O. for recounting of the ballots which application was allowed by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7.3. This order dated 22-6-96 is sough to be quashed through the present writ petition on the ground that there was no material before the learned S.D.O. on the basis of which recounting was necessa...
Shailesh Kumar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1528; [1999(82)FLR546]
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was Lekhpal. He was suspended by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakaldiba. Varanasi on 6.12.1989. He had not participated in the meeting held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5.12.1989. He was charge-sheeted. The inquiry officer held that the charges were substantiality. Its report was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30.4.1990 and he dismissed the petitioner from service. The appeal and representation made by the petitioner to Additional District Magistrate and Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi were dismissed. The correctness of these orders has been challenged in this petition.2. I have heard Shri B. N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. P. Singh.standing counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed as the inquiry was contrary to the procedure provided in the rules and the order is against principles of natural justice. The ...
Bhartiya Janhit Samiti and another Vs. St. Mary's Convent Inter Colleg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1558
M. Katju and R. K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard counsel.2. This petition has been filed against St. Mary's Convent Inter College. Allahabad which is a purely private institution and moreover a minority institution. Hence no writ lies against it. Moreover, the petitioner's prayer is not to start Class XI of I.C.S.E. and C.B.S.E. Board and further not to change school dress of the students. These matters cannot be gone into by this Court as these are matters to be decided by the College Management at its discretion. The petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »