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.
Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2774
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Blhari, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 28/29.1.1992 passed by respondent No. 3, the District Supply Officer, Varanasi, as communicated to him. vide his office letter No. 527/DSO Shop 5/92 dated 29.1.1992 as contained in Annexure-4 suspending and cancelling with immediate effect the licence of his shop No. 193, Chowk Division on the ground that he has unauthorisedly transferred his shop by way of shikmi (sublet) to Vijay Kumar son of Mewa Lal, House No, C-9/115, Habibpura, Varanasi, after recording a finding that despite notice, he has failed to file his show cause and thus he had nothing to state in regard to the charge.2. Mr. Dhananjay Rai. holding brief of Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows :The notice dated 8.1.1992 requiring to file show cause in regard to the alleged violation of Provision No. 23 of the U. P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 1990. had not ...
Smt. Chandrawati Devi Vs. Additional Commissioner (Stamps), Meerut and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2848
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the Order dated 27.11.1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Meerut Division in Case No. 395/D.C. 82, State v. Chandrawati Devi, holding that instead of using stamps worth Rs. 2.510 In regard to the agreement which she has entered with the Municipality, Meerut, for obtaining lease of a shop for an indefinite period she has used stamps worth Rs. 5 only and. thus, liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,505 further towards stamps and a sum of Rs. 6,000 as penalty thereon as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ petition. The Submissions :2. Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, contended with reference to the statements made in paragraph 8 to the writ petition, which have not been denied by the respondents as incorrect by filing any counter-affidavit, that principles of natural justice were grossly violated while passing the impugned order inas...
Ramesh Chandra Kulshrestha Vs. Addl. Director of Education, (Madhyamik ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3026; (1999)3UPLBEC1926
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. The question involved in this writ petition is, if the Additional Director of Education. In the circumstances of the case, has power to review the order passed by the Joint Director of Education or not? Here are the facts.FACTS 2. The petitioner was born on 1.7.1940. He is a teacher in the Girdhari Inter College. Sirsaganj. Firozabad [the College for short). He has completed 58 years of age on 30.6.1998 and should have retired on that date, if he had given option to retire at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, he had given option to retire at the age of 60 years and he continued in service. On 17.9.1998, the Manager of the collegeissued a letter stating that there are cuttings in the option given by the petitioner and in fact the option given by the petitioner is to retire at 58 years of age and not 60 years. He should have retired on 30.6.1998. In view of this, he did not permit the petitioner to teach in the college.3. The petitioner filed, a repr...
Kansal Trading Company Vs. Member, Sales Tax Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: [2000]120STC523(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated October 9, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, whereby it dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated May 3, 1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on a first appeal preferred by the petitioner.2. The first appeal was decided by an order dated May 3, 1986, while the appeal before the Tribunal was filed after more than 2 1/2 years in January, 1989. The period prescribed for filing an appeal before the Tribunal is 90 days from the date of the service of the order. In the application for condonation of delay copy of which is annexure 5 to the present writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner came to know on January 10, 1989 when an amin called upon it for recovery, that the appeal might have been rejected. It was then that he applied for a certified copy of the order on Ja...
State of U.P. Vs. Tek Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3821
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. The above appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-2-1977 passed by Sri K.C. Bhargava, the then III rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Sessions Trial No. A-163 of 1976, A-206 of 1976 and A-210 of 1976, convicting Tek Chand under Section 394, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and acquitting said Tek Chand and Dharam Pal under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Tek Chand under Section 411, I.P.C. and Section 24 Arms Act. All the above three appeals arise out of a common judgment and order and, therefore, they were taken together for hearing and disposal by a common judgment.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on the night of 30-5-1975 Krishan Narain Singh, deceased, along with his brother Surendra Pal Singh, (PW 16) and his friends Ravindra Singh, (PW 18), Mahendra Singh and Sunil Sahgal were going to Mussorie from Ghaziabad in Car No. ADY 8500. Mahendra Singh w...
Shamsher Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2631; (1999)3UPLBEC1921
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 9.12.1994 imposing the punishment of curtailing 25% of his pension after holding him guilty of the charges and the order dated 5.4,1995 dismissing his appeal preferred against the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-XI and XVI respectively to this writ petition.2. Having heard Sri Kauser, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. K. Bisaria.learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at length, we are of the view that this writ petition, in the interest of justice, has to be allowed in part, as the appeal is required to be disposed of afresh for the reasons stated as under :3. Eight charges were framed against the petitioner, which were found to be proved by the Inquiring Officer. His report was considered, accepted and the order dated 9.12.1994 was passed. From a perusal of the Impugned appellate order, it transpires that ...
U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Labour Commissioner, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2716; (2000)ILLJ651All
S.R. Singh, J.1. Appeal on hand, stems from the Judgment and order dated 14.5.1999 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner the challenge in which was focussed on the order dated 26.10.1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Rule 25 (2) (u) (a) of the U. P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975.2. At the very threshold, Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent made a preliminary submission stating that the appeal under Chapter V11I ; Rule 5 of the Rules of Court was not maintainable. The quintessence of his submission is that the LabourCommissioner while exercising the power under Proviso to Rule 25 (2) (u) acts as Tribunal' and, therefore, the udgment and order of the learned single Judge made in the writ petition wherein the order of the Labour Commissioner (Tribunal) was under ihallenge, would not be appealable. Sri Tarun ...
Smt. Rama Sharma Vs. Prescribed Authority, Mainpuri and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2669
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel. This is landlord's petition. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.5.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the tenant moved under Section 28 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application in question was barred by limitation as the same was moved beyond six months period from the alleged injury and the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is however, untenable. Subsection (1) of Section 29 applies only where mischief or any other offence is committed in the course of collectivedisturbance. This sub-section has no application to the commission of mischief by the landlord or anyone else individually. This view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court in Sudhakar Shukla and...
Yogesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2634; (1999)3UPLBEC2052
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Two fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition :(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide Job to the petitioner as per Government Orders issued time to time particularly the G.O. dated 29.6.1988 (Annexure-No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations which are already pending for disposal.'2. According to the petitioner, the lands recorded in the name of his father Ishwari Prasad Sharma were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1971 for the purposes of making a residential colony by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ; the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued several notifications and Government Orders for providing service to the members of the family of such persons whose lands have been...
Faggun Jamadar Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC2982; (1999)3UPLBEC1895
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as sweeper in the institution on 1.7.1973. His services were regularised by an order dated 22.4.1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. He was also given salary from April. 1991 to January, 1992 for ten months. Thereafter another District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 6.10.1992 refused salary to the petitioner on the ground that when the petitioner became continuous appointed in 1990, his age was 51 years 4 months, therefore, he became overage for regularisation. The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.10.1992 by means of the instant writ petition.2. Heard Sri S. K. Pal. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Prem Prakash Tewari. learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.3. The District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 22.4.1992 found that the petitioner was appointed from 1.7.19...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »