Allahabad Court February 2000 Judgments
Km. Siddh Vidya Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1381; (2000)2UPLBEC1466
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner a student of M.A. Final. Sociology in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, residing in Jyoti Kunj Hostel and a first class student throughout has challenged the order dated 7.1.2000 passed by the Vice-Chancellorexpelling her from the hostel and debarring her from appearing in the examination for the acts of indiscipline and misconduct. The relevant extract from the order dated 7.1.2000 is quoted below :(4) Whereas on examinationof her aforementioned reply andconsidering the entire case onmerit, it is now established thatthe aforementioned Km. Siddh Vidya has committed not onlyacts of indiscipline andmisconduct as defined in theOrdinances GoverningMaintenance of University Hostelsand Delegacies, BHU CalendarPart I, Vol. II, Pages 317 but alsoacts of indiscipline includingmisconduct, act punishable underthe law of the land, act whichinterferes with personal liberty ofother, subject another toindignity, involve physicalviolence, act which disturbs thesmooth ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neera Saxena Vs. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1401
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Heard. The destitute wife is the appellant. She has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the validity of the order dated 30th January, 2000 passed by Sri S. C. Bose, Judge, Family Court. Moradabad, disposing of Family Case No. 596 of 1999 in terms of compromise alleging, inter alia, that neither the case nor was thecompromise filed by her and that her husband has played fraud on Court.2. The office has raised an objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that since the order is a consent one, therefore, under Section 19(2) of the Act, an appeal does not lie.3. Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant contests the correctness of the report of the Stamp Reporter by placing reliance on two Judgments-one of the Supreme Court and another of a learned single Judge of this Court.4. The Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Kumar JaIn and Others Vs. District Judge, Mainpuri and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1318
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the allotment order dated 19.9.1998 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mainpuri, respondent No. 2, and the order for delivery of possession passed in pursuance to the said allotment order.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the shop in question belongs to one Nem Kumar Jain. He died leaving behind him four sons and four daughters. Deependra Kumar Jain is one of his sons and the petitioners are his sons. They alleged that their grandfather, Nem Kumar Jain, had executed a Will in their favour on 17.10.1998 and, therefore, they were owners of the shop in question. The petitioners' version is that they were carrying on business of soaps, biscuits, etc. under the name and style of M/s. Raja Enterprises since the year, 1989 in the disputed shop. Petitioner No. 2, Vineet Kumar Jain, was carrying on business of manufacturing cooler body under the name and style of M/s. V.K. Industries from the shop in question. It was r...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bhushan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1337; (2000)2UPLBEC1097
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Executive Engineer in the service of Varanasi Development Authority w.e.f. from the date his Juniors were promoted, i.e.. 18.3.1994 along with consequential benefits including arrears and seniority. It has been further prayed that the respondents be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list at its proper place according to actual date of service of the petitioner from 22.10.1982.2. Heard learned counsel for theparties.3. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 21.10.1982 as an Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis vide Annexure-1 to the petition and since then he has been in continuous service. At that time the Vice Chairman of the DevelopmentAuthority was the appointing authority. Subsequently by U. P. Act No. 21 of 1985 which was enforced on 22.10.1984 Sections 5A was added in U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. A...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Sonkar Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Allahabad and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1333; [2000(85)FLR264]; (2000)IILLJ382All; (2000)3UPLBEC1973
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the Impugned dismissal order dated 30.12.1997 Annexure-10 to the writ petition and the order dated 28.3.1998 Annexure-12 to the writ petition.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was in the service of the Allahabad Bank and was an officer in junior management grade-1 and was posted as Assistant Manager. He was given a charge-sheet dated 29.7.1994 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition and he was suspended by the order dated 21.1.1994 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that serious allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was held in which he was given an opportunity of hearing and the enquiry officer submitted a report copy of which Is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed and his appeal was also rejected.4. Sri T. P. Singh learned counsel for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. S.D. Tewari Vs. Chief Medical Superintendent, T.B. Sapru Hospital ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1371; [2000(85)FLR216]; (2000)IILLJ365All; (2000)2UPLBEC1133
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. The petitioner is an Assistant Matron at T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and she has been transferred to Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. Thus, she has been transferred to a place only about 2 or 3 kms. away from the place where she is presently working in the same city.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transferwas mala fide. Even assuming so, it is settled law that in a writ petition, the petitioner has not only to show violation of law but also some prejudice that is to say. both law and equity must be in petitioner's favour. Even if an illegal order has been passed if it causes no prejudice to the petitioner, no writ will be issued. This is because writ is a discretionary remedy, and the Court is not bound to issue a writ even if there is violation of law.3. Hence even assuming that the impugned transfer order was mala fide, yet, in our opinion, the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice against her, be...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Pal Shakya and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1547; (2000)2UPLBEC1104
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed by the persons, who were selected by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), assailing the Government Order dated 1.4.1997, by means of which the selection process, on receipt of certain complaints were suspended on 11.4.1997. Similar orders passed by the State Government were also challenged by the petitioners, wherein it was stated that the State Government, on receipt of certain complaints regarding irregularities committed by Commission in the selection on the post of Principal, directed that the selection be not made without previous approval of the State Government. It was further directed that the Commission shall, without previous approval of the State Government in writing, take no steps to make the selection of the candidates by direct recruitment for appointment in substantive vacancies of the Principal between April 2 to 5, 1997 and shall not prepare any panel of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Develle Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2929
ORDERVaman Rao J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 11th October, 1999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Crl. Revision Petition No. 51 of 1999 which was directed against the order passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl. M.P. No. 1159 of 1999 in C. C. No. 8 of 1999 under which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused to discharge him in respect of the charges under Sections 419, 420 and 477 of Indian Penal Code.21. The facts constituting the offences alleged against the petitioner as scanned from the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows :(It is pertinent to mention here that a copy of the charge sheet has not been filed with the petition.) It is alleged that the petitioner approached the attendant of the Railway retiring room at Vijayawada for a room impersonating himself as Assistant Commercial Manager. On the representation of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Jalan Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(119)ELT531(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing respondents to decide the petitioners application under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act and not to take coercive measures against the petitioner before determining the actual production under Section 3A(4) of the Act.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Prakash Kesarwani for the respondent.3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Casted Blooms. A provisional determination and final determination was made under Section 3A(1) of the Act, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition. Against the said determination the petitioner made a representation dated 20-11-1998, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the petition. It also made a written submission vide Annexure 5 to the petition. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 29-11-1999 to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad praying for a re-determination under Section 3A(4) vide Annexure 6 to...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1202
M.C. Jain, J.1. In alt these writ petitions, an order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Lucknow, has been challenged who has been arrayed as respondent No 3 in Writ Petition No. 8282 of 2000 and as respondent No. 1 in all the remaining writ petitions. The controversy Involved and the question calling for adjudication in all the writ petitions being identical, we propose to decide them by this common order treating Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7561 of 2000 as the leading writ petition. The impugned order is Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition No. 7561 of 2000. The writ petitions have been opposed by the respondents at the admission stage itself.2. Succinctly placed. the relevant facts are that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Guatam Budh Nagar) through NOIDAon 5.1.1991 and 7.1.1992 respectively, concerning nearly 496 acres of land including...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »