Allahabad Court February 2000 Judgments
Udai Shankar Tiwari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1197; (2000)2UPLBEC1074
S.R. Singh, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.1999 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19450 of 1999 filed by the Committee of Management. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College, Vijai Nagar. Kanpur Nagar, in short the College, and quashed the order dated 12.4.1999 impugned in the writ petition. By order dated 12.4.1999 the District Inspector of Schools had revoked the suspension of the appellant in exercise of power under sub-section (8) of Section 16G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, in short the Act.2. The appellant--a teacher In the college--was taken into custody on 27.2.1997 in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased in the incident was the daughter-in-law of the appellant and because of his alleged involvement in the said case, the appellant was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management v...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Balika Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1667
D. K. Seth, J.1. The opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 had filed Original Suit No. 55 of 1995 for certain reliefs with regard to their employment as teacher and peon respectively in the concerned school which Is not included in the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government. In connection with the said suit, an application for injunction was filed. The trial court byan order dated 8th May, 1995 had passed an order of Injunction restraining the petitioners from Interfering with the services of the plaintiffs and also to pay their salary regularly and from appointing any other person in the place and stead of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the Manager of the Committee of the school describing himself by his personal name and the Principal who was also described in her personal name. The said appeal has since been dismissed against which this writ petition has been moved.2. On the prayer of Mr. Rajeev Mfsra, learned counsel for the applicants, this petition has since been permitted to be...
Tag this Judgment!Milap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3059
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist/applicant, Milap Singh, against an order refusing to extend him the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The order by which this benefit was denied is dated 27-3-1998.2. While admitting the revision, this Court has stayed further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 251 if 1990 (State v. Ram Beti) pending in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri.3. I have heard the revision. No serious arguments have been advanced, so far as merit is concerned. The only point raised before me seriously is that of availability of the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act to the applicant on the ground that at the time of occurrence he was under 15 years of age. In support of this plea that the applicant is a juvenile, the evidence on record is that of medical examination report which is Ext. C-1 proved by Dr. M.L. Verma, Chief Medical Officer. Mainpuri, dated 16-8-1997. According to the medical opinion of the above said doc...
Tag this Judgment!idris Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2264
M.C. Jain, J.1. By means of this habeas corpus petition the petitioner Idris has challenged the detention order dated 3-7-1999 passed against him by respondent No. 3 (District Magistrate Bulandshahr ) under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.2. Affidavit and counter-affidavits have been exchanged between the detention the parties.3. We have heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 - Union of India. The record has also been examined by us. The grounds of detention of the Petitioner have been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. According to them, in between the night of 13/14 th June, 1999 at a distance of 50-60 yards from Ganga Ghat Basi within Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, 60 or 65 calves aged between 1 and 11/2 year had been slaughtered with a planning and the beef had been carried to Delhi on ...
Tag this Judgment!Riyazat Ali Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3055
M.C. Jain, J.1. Sri Ram Jeewan Gupta, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat has convicted accused-appellant Riyazat Ali under Section 302, I.P.C. He has sentenced him to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- within three months or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in default. He has made reference under Section 366, Cr.P.C. to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence passed by him. The accused-appellant has also preferred appeal against his such conviction and sentence passed.2. It was a double murder case of one Mushtaq aged about 35 years and Km. Reshma aged about 13 years (own daughter of the accused-appellant). The incident took place on 9-5-96 at about 10.00 A.M. in Mohalla Takia Gausganj. Police Station Musa Nagar, Kanpur Dehat. The report was lodged by Smt. Julekha Khatoon PW 2 wife of deceased Mushtaq the same day at 10.40 A.M. after getting it scribed by one Abdul Khalil. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was a...
Tag this Judgment!Chob Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC877
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The first prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order dated 13.9.1995. passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mant, district 'Mathura in substance the English translation of which reads thus :'R.I. (M) : Take trouble of stopping the illegal construction by the help of the police. Sd/- Illegible 13.9.1995.' 1.1. The further prayer of thepetitioners is to command respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to Interfere with their possession and other co-tenure holders over the disputed land except according to law and the procedures laid therefor.2. The petitioners describe the disputed land as a piece of land lying at a distance of about one hundred meters from their residential houses which is in their possession since the time of ancestors where they and their brothers used to keep cattle, cattle fodder, agricultural equipments and there also exists cattle sheds and wooden huts, etc. and they became absolute owners thereof with enforcement of the ...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Parihar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1317; [2000(86)FLR320]; (2000)IILLJ1237All; (2000)2UPLBEC1077
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard Sri V. B. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General.2. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 31.12.94 and 30.5.98 (Annexures-VIII and X to the writ petition).3. The petitioner was a Development Officer in Life insurance Corporation of India. It appears that he was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 24.12.94, copy of which is Annexure-VI to the writ petition. Show-cause notice along with corrigendum was issued to him andthereafter, he was dismissed on 31.12.94 vide Annexure-VIII to the writ petition. It is stated that the date of dismissal order was the date of retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-X to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.4. In para 26 of the petition, it is stated that the dismissal order dated 31.12.94 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing t...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Naresh Chandra Agrawal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000ACJ931; 2000(2)AWC1335
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The solitary point urgedby Sri S. C. Srlvastava holding brief of Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal is that even though the claimants were not dependents of the deceased, thus the Judgment awarding compensation at the rate of 10% in their favour has been Illegally passed and thus the appeal be admitted.2. When we asked a question to Mr. Srivastava as to what is the basis of making his submission, he referred to Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus : 'where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased.'3. The Legislature has not used the word 'dependent' rather it has used the words 'all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased'. The words 'legal representative' have not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementione...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Agra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1669
D. K. Seth, J.1. In this petition orders passed on revision under subsection (4A) of Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') has been challenged. The question involves disputed question of fact which can be established by a person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4A) of Section 122B of the Act, in a suit in terms of subsection (4D) of the said Act.2. Sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prescribes that any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this Section may file a suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. Sub-section (4E) does not preclude filing of suit against the order of Collector passed under subsection (4A) of Section 122B of the Act, though It precludes a suit against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, if revision is preferred t...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC558(All)
P.K. Jain, J. 1. These four revisions arise out of common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, dated June 7, 1999 remanding Second Appeals No. 61, 62, 63 and 64 of 1997 by the revisionist and Second Appeal Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 102 of 1997 by the department. Questions involved in all the revisions are identical, therefore, the revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. For assessment year 1984-85 original assessment was completed on March 30, 1989 and for the assessment year 1985-86 the original assessment was completed on December 31, 1988. The assessing authority, however, reopened the assessments for both the years under Section 21 on the ground that certain information was received from Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) who in his own turn had received informations from the Mandi Samiti which disclosed that certain turnover escaped assessment. After giving the assessee opportunity the assessing authority passed final orders under Section 21 enhancing the admitted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »