Allahabad Court November 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.
Ramjan Alias Sawanru and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ940
M.A. Khan, J.1. These are connected appeals arising out of judgment and order dated 10-7-1980 of Sri D.P. Srivastava the then Additional Session Judge, Gorakhpur whereby all the appellants of both the appeals have been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 148, I.P.C., imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 324/149, I.P.C.2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same incident, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The prosecution story briefly stated is that in the night between 11/12-9-1978, Sita Ram Resident of village Neta Surhurwa, P. S. Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur was sleeping in the 'Baithaka' of his house on a cot. Nebu Lal his servant was also sleeping on the same cot. Banarsi and Ram Naresh were also sleeping on a 'Takhta' in the same 'Baithaka'. A burning lantern was hanging from a peg embedded in the western wall of the 'Baithaka'. It is alleged that at about 2.00 A.M. the appellants Ramjan alias S...
Union of India, Through G.M., N.R., New Delhi and Others Vs. Dr. R.C. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC110; [2000(87)FLR728]; (2001)1UPLBEC18
S. R. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated 31.5.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the compulsory retirement of the respondent Dr. R.C. Mishra has been set aside by the Tribunal with all consequential benefits.2. The respondent Dr. R. C. Mishra who was the applicant before the Tribunal entered the railway service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I on Danapur Division of Eastern Railway. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and by order dated 29.8.1988 he came to be retired by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways in purported exercise of power under Rule 2046 (h) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-II. The said order of compulsory retirement was the subject-matter of impugned judgment before this Hon'ble Court.3. We have had heard Sri A. K. Gaur for the petitioner and Sri Somes...
Kanchi Lal and anr. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)1UPLBEC221
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioners, who found their access of the service of Corporation as Conductors on contractual basis and who are being paid wages at the rate of 35 paise per (earned) kilometres as and when they are temporarily engaged for a specified period of one year and which period is liable to be extended, have instituted this phalanx of the writ petitions for the reliefs that the respondents be directed to assimilate the petitioners in the service of the Corporation as regular conductors and pay them the salary and other emoluments in parity with the regularly appointed conductors under the Corporation and further not to terminate their services in virtue of the conditions envisaged in the contract and also the respondents be directed to abolish the practice of contract appointment. Since all the petitioners are knit together by similar facet of controversy being based on identical facts, they are amenable to disposal by a composite order and they were taken up with the consent ...
A.G. Steels Vs. Dy. Commissioner, C. Ex. Divn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(128)ELT53(All)
ORDER1. Heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta for the respondents.2. Petitioner's goods were seized by Central Excise Department and the petitioner applied for release of the same on furnishing security under Rule 206(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Although the applications for release was moved as far back as on 7-8-2000 and 8-8-2000, it is deeply regrettable that as yet those applications have not been disposed of. In our opinion, when an application for release of the goods was moved, it should have been either allowed or rejected or disposed of in some other manner within a week or so, but keeping the said applications undisposed gives rise to all kinds of apprehensions in the public.3. On the facts of the case we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to release the aforesaid goods of the petitioner forthwith on its furnishing security to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›