Allahabad Court January 2000 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.
K. D. Singh Vs. U. P. Cooperative Spg. Mills Federation Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1078b; (2000)1UPLBEC625
M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned order of dismissal dated 25.10.1996 Annexure-20 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management of respondent No. 1 as Spinning Master by order dated 19.5.1986. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He was thereafter promoted as Production Manager vide Annexure-2 and he was again promoted as Secretary/General Manager on 12.10.1988. He was thereafter transferred to various mills and worked as Secretary/General Manager and has alleged that he was given commendation certificate.3. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner as stated in paragraph 10 of the petition and by letter dated 9.8-1986 he was called upon to give his explanation in respect of certain charges of Irregularities vide Annexure-11. The same day he was also suspended vide Annexure-12 to the petition. The petitioner gave a reply but he v/as given charge-sheet ...
Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1073; [2000(85)FLR133]
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26.2.1997 and 24.12.1999 Annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition.3. The petitioner applied for appointment as Mazdoor in the Central Ordinance Department, Kanpur and thereafter he was interviewed and selected on the post of Mazdoor by letter dated 7.1.1989 Annexure-2 to the petition. However.in the relevant form the petitioner did not mention that he was facing a criminal case under Section 147/323/352/504, I.P.C. which was later converted into Section 307, I.P.C. Hence his selection was cancelled vide Annexure-3 to the petition. In that criminal case, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 7.7.1989 true copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Hence he made representation dated 4.8.1999 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition stating that he has been acquitted in the criminal case and hence he should be permitted to join duty. He mad...
Narendra Veer Singh Tomar Vs. Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Etah and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC696; [2000(84)FLR907]; (2000)1UPLBEC689
A.K. Yog, J.1. Both the respondents are represented by their counsel Shri N. S. Chaudhary, Advocate and parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits. Writ petition is finally decided at 'Admission' stage.2. This petition has been filed against the order of termination dated 7th May. 1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) dismissing from service of concerned Zila Parlshad of Etah.3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents on the ground ofalternative remedy under Rule 42, U. P. Zila Parishad Rules. 1970.4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition should not be entertained on any ground whatsoever since the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 42. Uttar Pradesh Zila Parishad Services Rules, 1970.5. This position has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is argued that this Court should not forestall the hearing of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy when the ground taken in...
Hari Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etah Camp at Mathura ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1029
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the Judgment and order dated 25.2.1978 passed by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).2. Brief facts as stated in the writ petition for the purpose of the present case are that plot Nos. 338, 339. 349 and 351 were recorded in the basic year khataunl in the name of respondent No. 4, Goswami Raghunath Lalji Maharaj and the name of the petitioner was recorded in class 9. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and claimed that he be declared sirdar on the basis of the adverse possession. The case of the petitioner was contested by the opposite party on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession, therefore, the entry of class 9 may be rejected. it is stated that the petitioner in order to prove his possession he has filed various revenu...
State Election Commission Vs. Krishna Kumar Srivastava and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1392
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4.8.99 by which he allowed the writ petition and issued mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularisation in case retrenched employees of octroi department or local bodies or additional staff from Collectorate is not available for regularisation on the regular posts.2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the termination of their services orally since June. 1997 and it was prayed that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents inthe writ petition to permit the petitioners to work on the post held by them prior to their oral termination and pay them monthly salary and arrears from 1.3.97. It was also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents not to fill up the vacancies existing by resorting to 100% reservation for retrenched employees.3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it was alleged that a Fax messag...
Peer Mohammad Vs. District Judge, Jalaun and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1466
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.5.1995 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 and further for issuance of a writ commanding the respondents not to give effect and not to implement the impugned order and not to evict the petitioner from property in dispute in pursuance thereof.2. Brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 26 claiming themselves to be the landlord of the premises in question filed an application under Sections 21 (1) (a) (b) and 2 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged in the application for release that the heirs of Abdul Gafoor had let out one room and open land measuring 10 feet to the petitioner but the petitioner has wrongly claimed in his tenancy 60 feet 85 feet land along with one room and chhappar. It was further pl...
Virendra Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2258
M.C. Jain, J.1. Accused-appellant Virendra Singh has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees 1000/- by the judgment dated 28-4-1980 passed by Sri Manphool Singh Premi the then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1979. Aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. Two others Jagdish son of Sumer Jatav and Jagdish son of Har Dayal were tried along with him who came to be acquitted.2. The genesis of the prosecution case was the written first information report lodged at Police Station Kannauj, District Farrukhabad on 12-3-1979 at 3.20 p.m. by Abar Hussain PW-1 father of the deceased Riyaz Ahmad. The incident took place on that day at about 2.00 p.m. in village Sadkapur. The case of the prosecution was that on that day the deceased had taken his cows to the river to make them to drink water. The complainant Abrar Hussain was watching his Chak nearby. When Riyaz Ahmad was returning from the river along ...
State of U.P. Vs. Ram Chandra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)17; 2000CriLJ2266
M.C. Jain, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-11-1979 passed by Sri. R.C. Srlvastava, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 623 of 1975 (Crime No. 539 of 1973, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah) Whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charged offence under Section 409 IPC.2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the accused-respondent Ram Chandra Singh, Head Constable was In-charge of Sadar Malkhana, District Etawah. A report against him and his assistant Constable Ram Sanehi was made on 19-8-1973 by Sir T.D. Sharma, the then Public Prosecutor, Etawah that the case properties of the following seven cases which had been deposited in Sadar Malkhana were not available :1. Case property No 885/72 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Ekdil.2. Case property No. 807/72 under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Bharthana.3. Case property No. 880/72 under Section 25 Arms Act. P.S. Achhalda4. Case property No. 120/73 under S...
Hazari Lal Gauri Shanker Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(119)ELT276(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi at the instance of the applicant M/s Hazari Lal Gauri Shanker, the following question stated to be of law and to arise our of the Tribunal's order dated 29th of July, 1983 passed in Appeal No. GC (Del) (T) A. No. 32/82-NRB has been referred for the decision of this Court :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true construction of Sections 1 (sic) & 79 of the Act, the failure to give show cause notices to the persons claiming ownership of the new gold ornaments had vitiated the order relating to their confiscation.'2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was a partnership firm with Shri Gauri Shanker and his son Krishna Gopal as its partners. The business premises of the applicant were searched by the authorities under the Gold Control Act on 29th of March, 1980 and from an iron safe installe...
Lalit Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT563(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi that has referred the following questions for the decision of this Court:'(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in arriving at different findings contrary to the findings of the Allahabad High Court in criminal revision No. 1756/80 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal erred in imposing the penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 in the absence of any gold being seized and on the basis of the accounts only ?'2. We have heard Sri V.K. Goel, learned counsel for the applicant at whose instance this reference has been made and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. The facts of the case are that on 12-10-1974 the Central Excise Department, Income Tax Department and the local police jointly raided the residential premises of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »