Allahabad Court August 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.
Alkashwari Sawrup Joshi Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3526; (1999)3UPLBEC2050
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the office order dated 17.9.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NO1DA (as contained in Annexure-10) cancelling her deed dated 2.8.1986 in relation to plot No. 11, Block-E, Sector 40 on the ground that it was got executed and possession obtained by bringing false facts noting that on coming to know of these facts, a show cause notice was sent to her by exercising his power under clauses III-B and III-E of the lease deed Itself.2. A number of grounds have been urged by Mr. U. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the prayer made in this writ petition as well as the prayer made through an Interlocutory petition for commandingthe respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the alleged original affidavit of the petitioner dated 16.6.1986 bearing serial No. 694 which was kept in mind while passing the impugned order though not mentioned in it from their possession as acc...
Manoj Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ877
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25-4-1997 passed by Sri B.G. Saxena, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T.N. 87 of 1994, under Section 304, IPC, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Manoj Kumar Rai of the offence Under Section 304, Part-I, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years.2. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and the learned A.G.A.3. There is no force in this appeal.4. It is a case of patricide. The deceased in this case is Hari Nath Rai, aged about 40 years. The accused-appellant Manoj Kumar Rai is the son of the deceased from his first wife and on the date of occurrence he was about 20 years of age. The deceased had a daughter also from his first wife who is alive. After the first wife of the deceased died the deceased remarried Smt. Pushpa P.W. 2 Smt. Phuspha lived with the deceased. There is no issue from Smt. Pushpa. The informant in this case is...
Ram Krishna Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1414
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ petition Is directed against the order of transfer dated 29.6.1998. Prior to this order of transfer, the petitioner was transferred from Bareilly to Pillbhlt by order dated 14.5.1998. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 14.5.1998, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998 on 6.6.1998. Thereafter by . order dated 9.6.1998. transfer order of the petitioner to Pilibhit was cancelled. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that since the impugned order of transfer has been withdrawn, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed as Infructuous. But, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned order dated 29.6.1998 transferring him this time from Bareilly to Ghazipur.2. The law with regard to transfer has developed in the recent past to the extent that the High Court can only interfere in the orders of transfer if either there is violation of law or whe...
Smt. Guthrati Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2986
D.K. Seth, J.1. The order dated 29.8.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, II Court. Siddharth Nagar in Election Petition No. 4 of 1996 has since been challenged in this writ petition.2. Mr. Jokhan Prasad assisted by Mr. Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional court could not assume jurisdiction beyond the scope and ambit of sub-section (6) of Section 12C of the U. P. PanchayatRaj Act, 1947. The revisional authority can interfere with the decision of the prescribed authority only on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub section (6) of Section 12C of the said Act. In the present case, none of the clauses (a), (b) and (cj is satisfied. According to him. there was no Illegality or irregularity. He further contends that the order of recounting was challenged in revision, which was rejected, and thereafter it travelled to this Court which had again rejected the same. Therefore, it is no more open to take the ground wit...
Justice Nand Lal Ganguly (Retd.) Vs. State of U.P. and Others Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2985
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learnedcounsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner was an Advocate Practising in this Court and he was appointed as a Judge of this Court on 23.8.1990 and he retired on 7.10.1996. Thereafter, he was appointed as Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad on 11.8.1997 and he is still working on that post. The petitioner claims that his service as Presiding Officer of the industrial Tribunal should be added to his service as a High Court Judge for the purpose of calculating his pension. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner should be granted the same house rent and other allowances which are granted to the sitting Judges of this Court.3. So far as the first prayer is concerned, in our opinion, the same has to be allowed. It may be pointed out that the petitioner was given appointment letter dated 11.8.1997 appointing him as Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad vide Annexure-1 to the petition. In this ...
iqbal Ahmad Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3455
J. C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.2. The landlady-respondent No. 3 filed suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent and of denial of title. The suit was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on a number of grounds, the main ground being that the original landlady Fakia Bibi had left India for Pakistan in the year 1947 and she died there in the year 1953, so the property in question became Enemy Property and the same has vested in Central Government/Custodian. The trial court decreed the suit by the judgment dated 26.4.93 holding that the petitioner was liable to eviction as he failed to clear off arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand and that the petitioner was also guilty of disclaiming the title of the landlady. The petitioner preferred revision against the said judgment and the same was allowed by the revisional court by th...
Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ521
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 2-12-1980 passed by Sri S. K. Verma, the then learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1980, convicting the appellant Ranvir Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Gur Narain, (38), deceased, brother of Mahraj Singh, (P.W. 1) was resident of village Makrandpur, P. S. Airwa Katra. Smt. Munni Devi, (27), co-accused, who was acquitted by the Trial Court, was aunt of Gur Narain, deceased and belonged to his family. She was widow having two children and was residing separately in separate house. Towards north of house of Smt. Munni Devi, there was some open land belonging to Sobha Ram, uncle of Gur Narain, deceased. Sobha Ram had given his above land, towards north of house of Smt. Munni Devi, to the deceased in exchange. Smt. Munni Devi, co-accused wanted to grab said land and in...
Mahendra Pratap Dwivedi and Others Vs. Commissioner and Administrator, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1434
Naseemuddin, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ in the nature ofcertiorari for quashing the orders dated 6.12.1985 and 3.9.1986. passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. 3, Lucknow, Opposite Party No. 3 and for a direction to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to treat the petitioners continuing in service.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners moved Claim Petition Nos. 381 (F)/III/81 and 153 (F)/III/82, challenging their orders of termination from the services of Class III and Class IV post on 8.7.1981. This claim petition was dismissed by opposite party No. 3. Its review was also moved which was also rejected. The case of the petitioners was that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed by opposite party No. 2, Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Sharda Sahayak Kshetriya Vikash Pariyojna. Kadipur, Sultanpur on 20.5.1980 and 3.6.1980 as Junior Clerk and Tracer. Other petitioners are similarly appointed at class IV p...
Advocate's Association for Judicial Services, U.P. at Allahabad and ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2665; (1999)3UPLBEC1920
M. Katju and Krishna Kumar, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Sri S. K. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and learned standing counsel.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of advocates whereas other advocates are lawyers practising in this State. They wish to appear in the P.C.S. Judicial examination. The maximum age prescribed under the relevant rulesfor appearing in the said examination is 32 years for general candidates. The petitioners admittedly are above 32 years. Hence as the rule stands today they cannot appear in the said examination. This Court cannot amend the rules. The petitioners may make a representation to the State Government praying for amending the rules. If they make such representation to the State Government, the State Government shall dispose of the same preferably within two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in other States the age limit is 35 years. This fact can also be stated in the representation. If th...
Ram Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2998; (1999)3UPLBEC1932
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 17.4.1997 Annexure-7 to the petition. The petitioner was Addl. District and Sessions Judge and was placed under suspension by order dated 29.11.1995 and after enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The charges against the petitioner were that after the High Court rejected bail in two cases, the petitioner as A.D.J. granted ball. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that so far as the first charge is concerned, the High Court rejected the bail as not pressed. In fact in this case earlier, the District and Sessions Judge. Sri N. S. Gahlot had rejected the bail on merits and thereafter the bail application had been moved before the High Court and this application was dismissed as not pressed. As, regards charge No. 2. the bail application had been rejected by the High Court on merits after it had earlier been rejected...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »