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.
Krishna Murari Lal Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Budaun and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1868
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the prescribed authority, Budaun dated 30.11.1992 allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the said order on 30.5.1994.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Respondent No. 3 purchased the disputed shop by a registered sale deed on 15.6.1981 from its erstwhile owner Sri Vinay Krishna Rastogi. The petitioner was its tenant-Respondent No. 3 gave a notice to him on 18.3.1985 that he requires the accommodation bona fide for carrying on business and the tenant-petitioner should vacate the same. The petitioner did not vacate the disputed shop. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 7.10.1985 for release of the shop in question on the allegation tha...
Hari Shanker Rastogi Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1865
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer respondent No. 1 declaring the accommodation in question as vacant.2. The version of the petitioner is that he was let out first floor portion of premises No. 647, Katra, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the premises in dispute) in the year 1974 by landlord-respondent No. 3. In June, 1979 respondent No. 3 insisted for enhancement of rent. On 28.6.1979 an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 by which the premises in dispute was given to him for four years. In the agreement, It was stipulated that if the petitioner continues after 30.6.1980, he was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 250 per month and if he fails to vacate after four years, he shall be liable to pay 25% more than the actual rent up to one year time as mutually settled. This accommodation was let out without any allotment order being passed in his favou...
integrated Informatics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2096
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator under Clause 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (in short the Act).2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Electronic Hardware and Software products including Automatic/Semi-Automatic Test Equipment at Gurgaon. Haryana. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., E.S.S. Unit, Mankapur, district Gonda opposite party No. 1 invited tenders on 27.4.1991 for development and supply of Line Card Testers. The petitioner submitted its tender on 25.5.1991 for Line Card Testers. The tender was accepted by opposite party No. 1 and a letter of acceptance was given to the petitioner. It also issued purchase order on 27.2.1992.3. Opposite party No. 1 placed Order No. 1900482-2/1394, dated 27.2.1992 for purchase of 5 sets Line Card testers (Semi-Automatic Tester Model OIS). The petitioner is alleged to have supplied 5 Nos, Line Card Testers on 31.3,1993. The grievance of the peti...
Hari Shankar Nai Vs. Screening Committee, Collectorate Kanpur Dehat an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2156
V.M. Sahai, J,1. A short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether an employee can be compulsorily retired by the screening committee itself without there being an order passed by the appointment authority compulsorily retiring him.2. The petitioner was appointed as copyist in Collectorate, Kanpur on 17.3.1962 on Class III post. He was promoted as Wasil Waki Navis in 1989. By order dated 21.12.1994 the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the screening committee.3. Shri A. K. Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in view of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985 Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner could be compulsorily retired by the appointment authority in public interest either by three months' notice or by paying three months' salary. No such notice or pay was given to the petitioner by the respondents. The other argument of Shri Singh was that after an order was passed by the screening committee, the appointi...
Sukhbinder Singh Pannu Vs. Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2191; (1999)2UPLBEC1474
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 20th April, 1999 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Mr. R K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order of suspension has been issued without application of mind on the basis of the alleged report of Dinanath Sharma. He has pointed out from Annexure-1 which is a newspaper report that it was on the allegationthat the petitioner was trying to sale some insecticides in the open market. According to Mr. Mishra, this was the basis on which the petitioner was suspended. He contends that there cannot be any order of suspension unless the charge-sheet is issued. For that purpose, he relies on the note appended below Rule 28 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapallka Sewa Nityamavali, 1962. He relies on the decision in the case of Sri Hari Prasad Sharma v. Municipal Board, Gangoh, 1973 (1) SLR 348, in support of his above contention. He also relied on the decision Nilakantha Mishra v. State of Ori...
Ram Sumer Puri Vs. Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Ghazipur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2288
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sabha Jeet Yadav, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents.2. A sum of Rs. 6,154.80 is being recovered from the petitioner throughthe citation dated 9th July, 1991, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the petition. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality of the citation and for quashing thereof.3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that under the alleged Debt Relief Scheme of the year, 1990, the State Government have given rebate upto Rs. 10,000 for any loan advanced by any bank or cooperative society or Government itself, and amount sought to be recovered being below Rs. 10,000 is covered by the said Scheme. Therefore, the impugned recovery cannot be effected.4. Admittedly, the money sought to be recovered from the petitioner is not any loan advanced by any bank or co-operative society or Government itself, bu...
Rotas Kumar and Others Vs. Cane Commissioner and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2004; [1999(82)FLR715]; (1999)2UPLBEC1139
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th October, 1998 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition by which the petitioner was categorised 'B' in terms of Regulation 21 of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation. 1975 on the ground that the petitioner was categorised pursuant to an allegation related to the crushing season 1995-96. Mr. N. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no categorisation could be made in 1998 on the basis of allegation related to a period of 1995-96. He has. therefore, challenged the order relating to the finding of guilt as against him. He relied on Regulation 27 of the said Regulation in support of his contention.2. Mr. P. M. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that categorisation can be done under Regulation 21 even irrespective of any disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding may lapse on account of expiry of time as provided in Regulation 27 which prescr...
Jai Shankar Verma Vs. Chairman, Kshetriya Kisan GramIn Bank, Mainpuri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2132
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for considerationin this writ petition is when an employee tenders his resignation which is accepted by the employer, still the employer is under legal duty to communicate the acceptance to the employee or not.2. The petitioner was appointed on 5.1.1984 as Clerk-cum-cashier in Mainpuri Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank. Mainpuri. He joined on 10.1.1984. On 27.6.1986 he resigned from service. The resignation was accepted by the Chairman on the same day. He withdrew his resignation on 24.6.1992. In this petition filed against the order dated 24.6.1992, the petitioner claims that he resigned from service as he was suffering from Manic Depressive Psychosis from 27.6.1987 to 24.6.1992. In support of his illness, he has filed medical certificates of Dr. Shiv Om Varshneya along with supplementary affidavit. The petitioner further states that after he was cured of the aliment, he gave his joining report on 24.6.1992 which was not accepted by the respon...
Committee of Management, Yagya Mandal Sanskrit Pathshala, Jaunpur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2226
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Committee of Management, Yagya Mandal Sanskrit Pathshala, Shiv Mandir, Sirkoni, Jaunpur through its Manager Janardan Prasad Singh (hereinafter called 'the institution') filed this petition under Article 226. Constitution of India before this Court praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.2.1999 (Annexure-9 to the petition) and a writ of mandamus commending respondent No. 1 (Vice-Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi) to comply with the direction of this Court passed on 29.10.1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36497 of 1997 and to permit the students in the forthcoming examination of 1999 scheduled to be held in April/May, 1999 and certain other consequential relief. Respondent University was granted time to file counter-affidavit vide order dated 19th April, 1999 and case was directed to be listed on 30th April, 1999.2. On April 30, 1999, counsels were unable to appear and prosecute case due to strike o...
Sanjeev Deevan and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2204
O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.10.1998, Annexure-21 to the writ petition whereby wholesale licence of the petitioners to distribute the kerosene oil was cancelled by the licensing authority-respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24.2.1999, Annexure-26 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Paragraph 12 of the U. P. kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order, 1962').2. The petitioner No. 2 M/s. Deewan Oil Company is a registered firm having its office at Chhatta Bazar. Agra. The petitioner No. 1--Sanjeev Dewan is one of its partners. The firm carries on the business as a wholeseller in kerosene oil having licence No. 35 issued under the Control Order, 1962. The supplies of kerosene oil are received by the petitioners from the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the orders of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »