Allahabad Court July 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.
Sardar Pritam Singh (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Sardar Prakash Singh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2902
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Petitioner. Sardar Pritam Singh (since deceased through his legal representatives Smt. Mahendra Kaur and others) is the owner and landlord of residential accommodation (House No. 178/195B. Roshan Bagh, Khuldabad. situate in the town of Allahabad). He has been living in a portion of the said house. Admittedly, Khajan Singh, father of petitioner Sardar Prakash Singh (Respondent No. 1), was tenant in a portion of the said house in the past. Said Khajan Singh lived along with his sons (Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 Sardar Prakash Singh) in this very accommodation. After his death, petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived in specified portions in their tenancies. It appears that Sardar Pritam Singh (Petitioner] by means of registered sale deed dated June 4, 1980. purchased entire house, including the portion in the tenancy of Respondent No. 1. A true copy of the sale deed has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner. after purchasing the house, issued n...
Sohan Lal Umrawo Vs. Sachiv/Mahaprabandhak, Fatehpur District Co-op. B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2894; (1999)3UPLBEC1918
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitionerwas appointed as Guard in 1963 inDistrict Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Chandpur district Fatehpur. Heworked for some time as cashier/clerk. While working as cashier, hewas issued a charge-sheet forembezzlement of funds. In thedepartmental disciplinaryproceedings, he was found guilty ofthe charges framed against him. Thepunishing authority issued showcause notice to the petitioner byregistered post on 18/21.5.87 as towhy the petitioner be not removedfrom the services. Thereafter, by anorder dated 29.4.89 (Annexure-3 tothe writ petition), the petitioner wasremoved from the service, with theconcurrence of the institutionalService Board. The removal order hasbeen challenged in the instant writpetition.2. I have heard Shri B. P. Srlvastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H. R. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondents.3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner dated 18/21.5.87 and unless the res...
Chaudhry Ram Vs. Iiird Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3505
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.1995 passed by the appellate authority reversing the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16.2.91 and releasing the premises in question for business purpose in favour of landlord, the tenant-petitioner has now approached this Court for redress seeking quashing of the order of the appellate authority.3. The dispute relates to a shop situated in main bazar Saraawa, district Saharanpur, which is under occupation of the petitioner as tenant. The landlords moved application for the release of the said shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The release of the shop was sought for setting Jagmohan, the third son of respondent No. 2 in business who according to the landlords' case was unemployed and was sitting idle and since no other suitable accommodation was available with the landlords, their need of the shop in question was most genui...
Kunwar Prasad Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)3UPLBEC1816
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner alleges that in the merit list for selection and appointment of class IV employees, the petitioner was placed at waiting list at Serial No. 5. Mr. R.K. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that all the candidates had obtained equal marks and the list was prepared on merit-cum-seniority basis. The petitioner was the seniormost candidate among the five candidates in the waiting list by reason of the date of birth. The candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 have since been taken in service, overlooking the case of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner should have been taken in before the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 could be taken in.2. Mr. R.K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel submits that a counter affidavit has since been filed but the same is not on the record. The office was directed to trace out the same, while the copy was taken on the record. From paragraph 6 of the same, it appears that the person at Serial No. 4 got 16 mark...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.R. Sood
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]251ITR331(All)
1. The court has seen the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, relating to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86 and 1979-80 to 1981-82 in Re CWT v. A. R. Sud, dated November 13, 1996, by which the appeal of the Department has been dismissed by the Tribunal in Re WTO v. A. R. Sood. The Department sought an application before the Tribunal to refer a question of law to the High Court. This request of the Department was declined. The Tribunal has gone into the facts and the manner in which assessment orders had been passed. The assessments had been made consequently. There is no finding on the assessment orders, either before the Wealth-tax Officer or before the Commissioner or the Tribunal that the assessees had at any stage concealed facts in the matter relating to the wealth-tax assessments. Regard being had to the circumstances that the assessee is in business and the Department itself adopted, the yield method, the assessment orders must he given ...
G.N. Verma, Advocate Vs. General Manager, Jal Sansthan, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2881; (1999)2UPLBEC1584
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to command respondent No. 1 to withdraw its water connection forthwith and to submit past bills for adjudication to some Tribunals as required under the law.2. Shortly put, his case is that since the date of his purchase of the Premises No. 17/5 (New) 5 (Old), Auckland Road. Allahabad, he has been continuously paying house tax and water taxes respectively in regard thereto ; he received a bill of Rs. 2,483.54 P. (appending its copy as Annexure-1) in respect of excess water charge on the ground that the meter is defective, on receipt of which he sent a reply dated 19.11.1984 (appending its copy as Annexure-2) which was received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 29.11.1984 stating, inter alia, that the meter is not working and no charges for excess water was ever made since 1971. the year from which he has been living and pray that the dispute be referred under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply a...
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Commissioner, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3094; (1999)3UPLBEC2026
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th January. 1998 by which his representation for payment of the difference of salary during the period under suspension was refused. In this case, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of the charges. In the enquiry report dated 28th September, 1994, the Enquiry Officer had found that by reason of lapses on the part of the petitioner. Nagar Mahapalika had suffered pecuniary losses. Therefore, with adverse entry in service record one year's Increment was suggested to be stopped. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 22nd August, 1995 had passed a different order of punishment to the extent that the petitioner would not be entitled to the difference of pay of salary during the period under suspension and that an adverse entry be entered in his service record and he may be reinstated. Mr. G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the disciplina...
Dash Raj Yadav Vs. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3467; (1999)3UPLBEC2044
D. K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer by an order dated 27.7.1979. This order was challenged by the Committee of Management by means of a writ petition which was ultimately withdrawn, whereupon respondent No. 4 Deo Nath Singh had moved a Writ Petition No. 6008 of 1981. That writ petition was dismissed by order dated 19.1.1993, against which Special Appeal No. 116 of 1993 was filed. In the Special Appeal, the order dated 27.7.1979 was quashed after holding that respondent No. 4 Deo Nath Singh being appellant in the said appeal was senior to the petitioner Dash Raj Yadav and,therefore, the vacancy in the post of Lecturer was directed to be filled up in accordance with law. All through the question remains as to among the petitioner Dash Raj Yadav and respondent No. 4 Deo Nath Singh who was entitled to be promoted to the said post of Lecturer. In order to establish the respective rights both of them have been claiming one was senior to the other. At no point...
Mahesh Dutta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2646
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In the above writ petitions of fact and law involved are similar and they can be decided by a common order against which learned counsel for the parties have no objection. Writ Petition No. 6826 of 1995 shall be the leading case.2. Facts, in short, which may be necessary to appreciate the controversy between the parties are that State of Uttar Pradesh initiated proceedings for acquiring land measuring 105 Blgha 2 Biswa and 16 Biswansi (65.7125 acres) by issuing a Notification No. 4240-P-III-84/2326-Land-80, dated 6.9.1984, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aforesaid notification was published in U. P. Gazette dated 8.9.1984, For correction of certain mistakes in the notification, a notification was further published on 10.1.1985. The public purpose for acquiring the land was for establishing a Thermal Power Project by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, respondent No. 2. A declaration under Sectio...
Sant Kabir Food Product and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2638
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri S. D. Kautilya, holding brief of Shri Dinesh Dwivedl, learned counsel of the petitioners and Shri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. representing the respondents, at length and in detail.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1, a registered partnership firm and the petitioner No. 2, who is one of the partners of the firm, seek to challenge the validity of the order dated 29th February, 1992, passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting their claim for exemption from giving levy of the Kharif year 1991-92 under the provisions of U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order. 1985 (hereinafter called the Levy Order) as provided in the Government Order dated 30th October, 1991 a copy of which is to be found on record as Annexure-2 to the petition.3. The acts and events constituting the facts of the case as they emerge from the averments contained in the petition are the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »