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.
Rafeeq Alias Mantex Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ515
O.P. Jain, J. 1. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 36969 of 1998 has been filed by Rafeeq alias Mantex and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 35426 of 1998 has been filed by Rashid alias Kalwa. Both the detenus have been detained by order passed under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act of 1980 (hereinafter called the Act). The order of detention has been passed by District Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar who is respondent No. 3. As the grounds of detention and the grounds on which the detention has been challenged are similar in both the cases, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. We have heard Sri N. I. Jafri and Sri M. Islam on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Mahendra Pratap A.G.A. for the respondents and have gone through the record.3. The ground of detention furnished to the detenus is Annexure-3 from which it appears that on 11th June, 1998 the Nikah of Km. Salma was to take place at about 4 P.M. with one Haneef. Co-accused Infaq alias Kaddi had proposed to marry Km. Salma...
Parsoon Kumar Srivastava and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3375
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 16-7-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in complaint case No. 338 of 1998, Anjana Srivastava v. Prasoon Srivastava whereby he directed the summoning of the accused-revisionists for the offences under Sections 498A/504, I.P.C.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts leading to this revision are that Smt. Anjana Srivastava wife of Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (opposite party No. 2) filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 3-6-1998 against the revisionists. Prasoon Kumar Srivastava, Revisionist No. 1, is the elder brother of the husband of the complainant opposite party No. 2; Smt. Neeta Srivastava, revisionist No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant while Triloki Nam Srivastava, Revisionist No. 3, is the father-in-law of the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint were that the complainant Smt. Anjana Srivastava was married to Pradeep Srivastava on 1...
Shiv Ram Das Chela and Others Vs. Subhash Chandra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1552
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U. K. Saxena, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1.2. Suit No. 246 of 1992 for specific performance of the contract was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners. That suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioners moved an application under Order IX. Rule 13, C.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court passed an order setting aside the ex parte decree in the following terms :'Order dated 24.12.1992 passed in Original Suit No. 246 of 1992 isset aside on payment of Rs. 50 as costs. After payment of cost, Original Suit No. 246 of 1992 be restored to its original number.' Sd./ Illegible 1.1.1994' 3. The petitioners did not comply with the order by payment of costs. The application contained in Annexure-4 was moved by respondent No. 1 for recalling the order, dated 1.1.1994 on ground that the costs have not been paid, The Court thereafter passed the following order dated 28.2.19...
Arvind Kumar Vs. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1638; (1999)2UPLBEC1040
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner wasappointed on 4th May, 1991 on dailywage basis for a period of 30 days.Subsequently, the Deputy Director ofAdministration directed the Secretary,Mandi Samity, Bareilly to appoint thepetitioner as Typist on a consolidatedpay of Rs. 1,200 p.m. and accordedsanction for payment of salary for theperiod July, 1991 till November, 1991.Subsequently by an order dated 31stMarch, 1992, sanction for payment ofsalary of Rs. 1,200 p.m. was accordedfor the post held by the petitioner. Byan order dated 4th September, 1992,the petitioner's service wasterminated. This order waschallenged by the petitioner in WritPetition No. 4155 of 1993 since beendismissed by an order dated 3rdFebruary, 1993, with the observationthat if any vacancy arises, thepetitioner shall be given preference inappointment when such appointmentis made by the respondents, providedthe petitioner fulfils the qualification.Pursuant to the said judgment, thepetitioner had made an applicationon 6th April,...
Qmar Vishal Siddiqui Vs. Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1687; (1999)2UPLBEC998
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed by virtue of resolution dated 12.1.1997 for a period of 89 days purely on ad hoc basis or till the regularly selected candidate joins whichever is earlier. There was another resolution dated 15.3.1997 whereby the petitioner's service was extended after 1989 till regularization. On the basis of this resolution, the petitioner alleges to be continuing in service. The petitioner further contends that by an order dated 26.4.1997 the petitioner's tenure was extended till regularization. Subsequently the petitioner was transferred from one place to another by an order dated 6.6.1997 which was also amended subsequently by an order dated 17.6.1997. He further contends after his transfer, his salary having been stopped, the petitioner has made a representation which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. On the basis of such representation, as contended in para 34 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 had granted sanction by his letter No. 273, da...
Harish Chandra Gupta Vs. Swatantra Kumar JaIn and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1765
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved against the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 10.8.1982 releasing the disputed shopin favour of landlord-respondent No. 1 and the order of the appellate authority dated 27.3.1398, has filed this writ petition.2. Respondent No. 1 purchased premises in question bearing house Nos. 2127 and 2128 from the erstwhile owner Smt. Champa Devi on 12.2.1996. The first floor portion consisting of three rooms has been numbered as 2128 and the ground floor portion consisting of two interconnected rooms has been numbered as 2127. Mohan Lal was the tenant of both the portions, namely, 2127 and 2128. After his death in the year, 1962, it was inherited by his widow Nanhi Devi. After the death of Nanhi Devi, the petitioner occupied the premises as adopted son of Mohan Lal. Respondent No. 1 filed application against the petitioner on 25.8.1981 for release of the ground floor portion No. 2127 on the allegation that western wall of the disputed accom...
Hoti Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1768
Lakshmi Bihari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against Judgment dated 6.11.1984 passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, allowing the revision filed by contesting respondent No. 2.2. It appears that the petitioner and contesting respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement for mutual exchange of chaks between themselves. An application under Section 53 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) was filed before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 22.2.1984 allowed the said application and directed that chak Nos. 208 and 124 be amended in accordance with the amended chart forming part of the judgment. Aggrieved against the said Judgment, respondent No. 2, Man Singh filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment dated 6.11.1984 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment of the Settlement Offic...
Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1803
Naseemuddin, J.1. Praveen Kumar has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the S.T.D.-P.C.O. telephone connection No. 782732 and not to disconnect the petitioner's telephone in future, in case no amount is due against the petitioner, and also directing them to supply the copy of the order whereby the aforementioned telephone was disconnected on 26.10.1998 at 12.00 noon.2. The petitioner applied for allotment of Public Call Office (P.C.O.) connection and the same was given to him in February, 1997 by virtue of agreement, dated 24.9.1996, in between the parties. The petitioner had been depositing the amount duefrom him with the respondents according to the bills received by him w.e.f. 24.2.1997, as per details in the writ petition. On 26.10.1998, the respondents disconnected the aforementioned telephone connection of the S.T.D.-P.C.O. telephone in spite ...
Lahboli Kisan Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. P.O., Labour Court and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR453]; (2001)IIILLJ465All
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the award dated July 31, 1998, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, published on February 11, 1999, be quashed. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate has put in appearance. He maintained that since the order dated November 21, 19% terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 has been held to be illegal and unjustified and the workman has been reinstated in service with full back wages, along with Rs. 500 as cost, the petitioner be required to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Shri H.R. Misra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the reference under Section 4-K of the Act and the award made pursuant to the reference, aforesaid, is illegal and not binding on the petitioner for one simple reason that in view of the provisions of Section 135 of the ...
Rajendra Singh and 49 Others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1497; (1999)2UPLBEC1074
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners who are claiming to be apprentice trainee under the U. P. State Electricity Board, have challenged the advertisement contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board, providing that even apprentice would be required to be sponsored through employment exchange and that they would also be required to appear in the written examination.2. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing along with Shri Prakash Padia submits that in view of the decree in the case of U. P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Om Sharma in CivilAppeal No. 764 of 1993, dated 12.1.1995, it is not open to the State Electricity Board to require the apprentice to be sponsored through employment exchange or to appear in the written test.3. He draws my attention to the text of the said decree which specifically provides that while considering the question of recruitment, the Board shall follow its service regulation except that the tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »