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.
Akhilesh Kalra and Others Vs. Vth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC128
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, arises out of proceedings under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short 'the Act' and is directed against the order passed by District Judge dated 31.5.91. recalling the rent revision No. 1/91 from the Court of Iind Addl. District Judge and transferring the same to the Court of VIth Addl. District Judge, of which Mr. A. A. Khan was the presiding officer and the order dated 28.10.91 passed by VIth Addl, District Judge, allowing the revision under Section 18 of the Act. and setting aside the order passed by A.D.M. (E) Lucknow acting as Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 30.12.1986, whereby release application of the petitioners were allowed and the order dated 2.1.1991, whereby review appications filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were dismissed. 2. Relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the pres...
Net Plast Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2003; 1999(113)ELT791(All); 2000(116)ELT451(All)
N.K. Mitra, C.J. and S.R. Singh, J. 1. Challenge in the present Special Appeal is focussed on the Judgment and order dated May 3, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge thereby disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whichstemmed from an order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad. The Commissioner by means of this order passed in exercise of power conferred by Proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 partially waived the condition of pre-deposit of excise duty. The Stamp Reporter opined in his report that in view of Chapter VIII. Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the special appeal was not maintainable. Sri A. P. Mathur counsel appearing for the appellant demurred to the report stating that it did not commend itself to be accepted. Sri Mathur tried to bolster his stand by stating that the appeal is still pending before the appellate authority and the order under challenge ...
Ratan Kumar Singh Vs. Tahsildar, Sadar, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2121
Lakshmi Bihari, J.1. Sri Mukesh Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.R. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have been heard and the record has been perused. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally, at the admission stage itself.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the citation dated 16.6.1992, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.3. The foreign liquor shops of Robertsganj, and Duddhi, in the district of Sonebhadra, were put to annual auction for the year 1992-93. The auction was held on various dates, as the minimum target fixed by the State Government could not be achieved. In the auction held on 23.3.1992, the petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 1,26,00,000. (One crore twenty six lakhs) and in the auction held on 30.4.1992, one Shamb...
L. M. L. Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2039
O.P. Garg, J. 1. The petitioner,which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur, is undoubtedly covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act'). Earlier the employees, whose salary ranged in between Rs. 3,001 and Rs. 6,500 were not covered by the provisions of the Act. The State Insurance (Central) Second Amendment Act was published under G.S.R. 582 (E) dated 23.12.1996 whereby the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 were amended. The effect of this amendment/notification was that the employees who were drawing wages/salary ranging between Rs. 3,001 to Rs. 6.500 also came within the ambit of the said insurance scheme, as contemplated under the Act. The affected employees who were being paid 8.33% of their basic salary towards medical benefits in cash every month from the employer did not want to be covered by the amended provision...
Lohiya Machine (L.M.L.) Karmachari Sangh, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2134; [1999(82)FLR985]; (1999)IILLJ1023All
O. P. Garg, J.1. The petitioner is the registered union of the employees of the Lohiya Machines Ltd.. C-10, site II, Panki Industrial Area. Kanpur and has come forward to espouse the cause of its members. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Government order dated 3.10.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner, whereby exemption from the operation of the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was sought, has been challenged on a variety of grounds, inter alia , that the petitioner has not, at all. been given an opportunity of hearing and the order has been passed in a most cursory and perfunctory manner without recording any reasons.2. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that by notification No. G. S. R. 582 (E) dated 23rd December, 1996. Employee's State Insurance (Central) Rules. 1950 were amended by the Amendment Rules of 1996. to come into force w.e.f. 1st January, 1997...
Ram Kumar Singh Bhadauriya Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2439; (1999)2UPLBEC1410
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.5.1999 of the District Inspector of Schools. Etawah, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition.2. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.C. Misra for respondent No. 4.3. The dispute in the present case is as to who is entitled to be ad hoc Principal of Janta Inter College, Kundeshwar, Etawah. The law on this point has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 (FB), which has held that ordinarily the seniormost teacher will be appointed as ad hoc Principal unless there is something adverse against him/her.4. Admittedly respondent No, 4 is senior to the petitioner. However, the claim of respondent No. 4 for being appointed ad hoc Principal has been denied on two grounds :(i) that her right hand has been fractured. Learned counsel for r...
Bali Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2533
A.K. Yog, J.1. Bali Ram (Petitioner) has challenged orders dated November 12, 1982 and July 20, 1983 (Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Najibabad, District Bijnor and the Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) respectively. Consequently, the objection of the petitioner for releasing certain property attached vide order dated 6.2.82 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Nazibabad has been rejected.2. Briefly stated, one Amrit Singh filed Suit No. 187 of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bijnor, against Qadir Hussain for recovery of certain amount due under a promissory note. This suit was decreed on March 9, 1977. In Execution Case No. 35 of 1981, executing court got attached l/3rd share of plot No. 109 (Total Area-5 Bigha 6 Biswas 19 Biswansis) situate in village Daryapur, Tehsil Najibabad, district Bijnor.3. Amin submitted report of attachment dated January 16, 1981 (Annexure-1 to the w...
Jata Shanker Misra and Others Vs. Benaras State Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2416; (1999)IILLJ1090All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Shri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for respondents at the outset has taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. He further contends that the service condition of the petitioners is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations. The relation between the Benaras State Bank Ltd. and the petitioners is that of an employer- and employee which is purely contractual. He also contends that in the case of Writ Petition No. 30753 of 1992, decided on 1.11.1995, Vijay Kumar v. General Manager, Benaras State Bank Ltd. andothers, Division Bench of this Court had held that writ petition against the Benares State Bank Ltd. is not maintainable. He produces copy of the said judgment.2. Shri S.A. Gilani, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though the Benaras State Bank Ltd. is not a statutory authority and as such it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, yet it discharges public duty and there is an elem...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Gorakhpur and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2700
K. Jain, J.1. Respondent No. 2 espousing the cause of ten workmen, namely, Rani Adhar Dixit, Sequan Dixit. Chandra Shekhar Dixit. Vijay Shankar Dixit. Ram Nakshatra Dixit, Salaraat, Indal Yadav, Mohan Dixit and Ram Dhari Yadav. raised anindustrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Gorakhpur by Government Notification No. 1781/ Sra. Aa./36-Shram (1)/34 (Gorakhpur) /81. dated 31.3.1983. Following dispute was referred for decision by the Industrial Court, Gorakhpur :^^D;ksa lsok;kstdksa }kjk layXuifjf'k'V esa vafdr vius 10 Jfedksa dks lhtuy u ?kksf'kr fd;k tkuk ,oarnuqlkj lqfo/kk;sa u fn;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed dk ykHk vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dsvf/kdkjh gS] fdl frfFk rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr** 2. Respondent No. 2, in its written statement before the Labour Court, claimed that all the ten workmen were seasonal 'Darban' and had worked for the entire crushing season without any break. They were entitled to the benefits of the standing orders but th...
Hem Raj Mittal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ561
ORDERP.K. Jain, J. 1. The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Anita Goel is wife of applicant No. 10 Jatinder Kumar Mittal. She lodged a report dated 4-11-1996 against the applicants at Police Station Loha Mandi, Agra on the basis of which a case Crime No. 236/96 under Sections 323, 506, 498A, the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet as contained in Annexure 7 against all the applicants under Sections 323, 498A, 506, 406 and 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P Act.2. The allegations in the First Information Report are that the first informant was married to the applicant NO. 10 on 16-7-1991. After the marriage the accused persons who are residents of Delhi have been telling the first informant that her parents were millionaire but they did not give anything at the time of marriage and they have been pressing (her) to bring ten lacs for establishment of a factory by Jatinder Kumar. Whenever she refused to accede to their request, she was ill-treated and was bea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »