Allahabad Court May 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.
Ugra Sen and Another Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1902
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 4.12.1980.2. The case was taken up in the revised list. Sri S. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners was present but no body has appeared on behalf of the respondents. On 2.4.1999 learned counsel for the parties made a request to list this case on 19.4.1999 so that they may seek instructions from their clients and they were heard for some time and the matter was put up today, i.e., 19.4.1999, as part heard. When the learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up. the matter was heard ex parte.3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioners in the petition are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 16(1) (b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. It was alleged in the application that the petitioners were tenant of the shop in dispute and were carrying on business in the name of Natho Ma...
Prof. K.P. Pandey Vs. Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Vara ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1914; (1999)2UPLBEC1205
B. Dikshit, J.1. Aggrieved by order of Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Vice'-Chancellor') whereby while ordering petitioner's re-employment with effect from 5th September, 1998 till 30th June, 1999 by an order dated 28th June, 1998 under Statute 14.24 (3) of First Statutes of Uttar Pradesh Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Statute'), on the day following the petitioner's attaining age of superannuation, the Vice-Chancellor directed that petitioner shall neither be member of the Faculty nor Head of the Department nor he will hold these offices during re-employment. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as he was Head of the Education Department on the date he attained the age of superannuation at the time of retirement but on re-employment, the Vice-Chancellor appointed Dr. Sarla Pandey. Reader in the Department of Education of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Kashi Vidyapith') in exercise of power under Section 27 (4) of ...
Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1894
Yatindra Singh, J.1. This is the landlord's writ petition against the order dated 22.5.1982 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge,Allahabad allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2' dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner-land lord.FACTS2. The petitioner-landlord filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the tenant. The premises in dispute is residential premises. According to landlord-petitioner, the respondent No. 2 is his tenant. The rate of rent was Rs. 60 per month and Rs. 10 per month for water charges. Petitioner filed a suit after terminating the tenancy on the ground that the tenant-respondent No. 2 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 3 Sri Babulal son of Ram Bhawan alias Barka and he is in arrears of rent. The Judge. Small Causes Courts, Allahabad by its order dated 5.9.1998 held that the tenant is not in arrears of rent but he has held that the respondent No. 2 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 3. as such he decre...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2210
Shitla Prasad 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 16.12.1994 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 198 of 1994 and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to decide the revision finally without remanding back the same to the trial court. The petitioner has been filed by the tenant.2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the landlord, namely, Smt. Ram Kumari, filed Suit No. 48 of 1990 against the petitioner. Ashok Kumar, for ejectment from a room of premises No. 27/1, Clive Road, Allahabad and for recovery of Rs. 6,200 as arrears of rent and Rs. 350 as damages. It was stated in the plaint filed by the respondent No. 3 that she purchased the premises in question from Chandra Kishore and Nand Kishore sons of late Ram Charan through a registered sale deed dated 1.6.1989 and got poss...
Kulwanti Rai JaIn Vs. District Judge, Moradabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2215
Shitla Prasad 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 17.7.1993, which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition and also for restoring the order dated 1.9.1992, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by the prescribed authority.2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, which are relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that the petitioner, who is a landlord filed an application against the respondent No. 3, (hereinafterreferred to as the tenant) underSection 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as theAct). The landlord alleged that thetenants (opposite party Nos. 3 and 4)are not in occupation of the shop inquestion situate at the ground floor ;it is in dilapidated condition andrequired demolition andreconstruction. The petitioner hasfiled a copy of the application asAnnexure 1 to the writ petition.3. The opposite party No. 3 (t...
Om Pal Singh Vs. Senior Manager (P and Ir), Nuclear Power Corporation, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2402
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has been transferred from Narora to Tarapur by an order dated March 23. 1999 contained in Annexure-6 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Narora by an office order dated 24th March. 1999 contained in Annexurc-8. These two orders have been challenged by Mr. L. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the order of transfer is mala fide and that on the terms and conditions of service, the petitioner is not liable to be transferred from Narora to Tarapur. He has elaborated the grounds of mala fide with the facts of union rivalry as well as certain complaints. He further contends that the transfer order is a mid-session transfer and that though order of transfer has been dressed as an administrative exigency but in effect, it was not an administrative exigency. In the certified Standing Order, there is no provision for transferring an employee from one unit to another. On this ground, Mr. Srivastava ...
Jhurai Lal Vs. Vth Addl. District Judge, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2382
Yatindra Singh, J.1. What is the nature of arrears of rent? Should it be transferred only along with transfer deed? Does its transfer require registration? These are the questions involved in the present writ petition. This is how these questions arise. FACTS 2. Petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 8.50. Initially one Ram Singh was owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. He transferred the property in dispute on 14.12.1981 in favour of present respondent No. 3 (plaintiff). He also executed an agreement on 18.1.1982 assigning the right to realise arrears of rent to the plaintiff since 1976. Respondent No. 3 sent a notice dated 19.1.1982, which was served on the petitioner on 14.2.1982 demanding the arrears of rent from December, 1976 and terminating his tenancy. According to the petitioner, he paid the rent till December, 1981 to the previous owner Ram Singh and thereafter he sent a money order for the remaining period to the plaintiff. This was refused by the plaintiff; on ...
Municpal Board, Moradabad Vs. Liaqat Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2846
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. This second appeal has been directed against decree and judgment dated 9.11.1982 passed in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1979, Liaqat Husain v. Municipal Board, Moradabad. The said appeal was directed against the decree and judgment passed in Original Suit No. 443 of 1974, Liaqat Husain v. Municipal Board, Moradabad, on 8.5.1979. The trial court by its Judgment has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The 1st appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.2. At the time of admission of the second appeal, two substantial questions of law were formulated :(i) Whether the 1st appellate court could grant a relief which is not claimed by the plaintiff in his pleadings? (ii) Whether in view of the finding of the trial court that the landIn dispute was road patri, can auction of the same be held and whether that auction could be a valid auction? 3. The submissions made by Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant, were heard. No...
Guru Datt Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1861; (1999)2UPLBEC1270
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of rnandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Principal of Bundelkhand Inter College, Veer Nagar, Madho Garh, Jalaun (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and further to declare the provisions of Section 33C (6) of U. P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short the Act) as ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Pratap Singh Chandel was Principal of the institution. He retired on 30.6.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation and as the petitioner was senior most teacher in the institution, he was promoted on ad hoc basis as provided in the proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. His ad hoc promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 17-4.1993. 3. The Committee ofManagement notified the vacancy ofthe post of Principal to the U...
Committee of Management, Ganga Bux Kanoria Gandhi Inter College, Deori ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2183
A.K. Yog, J.1. Committee of Management, Ganga Buksh Kanorla Gandhi Inter College, KaptanganJ. Deorla through its Manager has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, and has impugned order dated 9.11.1979 (Annexure-37) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deorta and order dated March 20. 1982 (Annexure-41) passed by Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 dismissing appeal, whereby said educational authorities refused to accord approval to the Management's decision and action to terminate the services of Ram Pyare Pandey, (respondent No. 3), who was working as teacher in the petitioner's institution. Petitioner claims a writ In the nature certiorari to quash the said impugned orders.2. It has come on record that certain disciplinary action was taken against petitioner in the year 1976 and he made complaint against the same. Petitioner was suspended but said suspension order was revoked by the then District Inspector of Schools. Mana...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »