Allahabad Court February 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.
Ajay Kumar Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1397; (2000)3UPLBEC1976
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3.2. The petitioners in the instant writ petition initially prayed for Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the pay of thepetitioners in the scale of Rs. 1,600-2.660 w.e.f. 16.11.1993, i.e. the date since when the petitioners are continuously working as Research Assistant and to make payment of arrears regarding difference of pay with all consequential benefits.3. On 28.5.1999, the opposite parties were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 24.5.1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition keeping in view that the petitioners are continuously working from 16.11.1993 on the post of Research Assistant.4. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the opposite parties considered the representation of the p...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Smt. Gomti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3914; I(2001)DMC241
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. List has been revised. Mr. R.K. Asthana, learned Counsel for the applicant is not present in Court.2. I have perused the judgment and order dated 2.5.1996 by which the warrant for realisation of arrears as well as warrant of arrest against the opposite party-applicant was issued.3. The contention raised in the grounds of revision by learned Counsel for the applicant is that once order dated 19.1.1996 ceased to exist the learned Magistrate was without any jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order.4. I do not find any force in this argument inasmuch as while passing the order for withdrawing the past realisation proceedings the learned Magistrate has held that he had quashed the past recovery proceedings on the request of the wife. The application made by the lady was specific. Her contention was that the proceeding for recovery be withdrawn as she does not want any recovery of the arrears from her husband. She has already stated that she does not desire the maint...
State of U.P. Vs. Dharam Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4574
ORDER1. It is pointed out that an Advocate committed offending act on 24-8-1998 and one year therefrom having elapsed, the Court may consider the question of limitation before taking cognizance of the contempt under Section 20. Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-I Allahabaad High Court Rules called Rules of Court).2. Before proceeding further, it is worth while to deal with the limitation aspect of the case.3. Shri Shambhoo Nath, II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur submitted a report dated 28-8-1998 to the District Judge, Hamipur who, in turn, made a reference to the High Court vide letter dated 31-10-1998. A detailed note was prepared by the office giving details of the acts - committed by Sri Dharam Raj Singh and Sri Jai Karan Singh. Advocates which constituted contempt of the subordinate Court. The Registrar submitted 'statement of the case' vide his note dated 27-10-1998 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Chapter XXXV-...
Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000ACJ1168
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This F.A.F.O. has been preferred under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 [Section 124 of Railways Act 1989] against the judgment and order dated 20.4.1993 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Claim Application No. OA II/103 of 1992 allowing the application in part and awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by claimant/respondent.2. The respondent moved an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124 of the Railways Act for the compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in an accident of Kanya-kubj Express on 8.3.91 between Mandhna and Chaubeypur Railway Stations.3. The facts giving rise to the application out of which this appeal arose, briefly narrated are that on 8.3.1991 the respondent was travelling by Kanyakubj Express on monthly season ticket No. 13132 dated 6.3.1991 valid up to 5.4.1991. When the above train reached between Mandhna and Chaubeypur Railway Stati...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC853
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filedby the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 27.2.1984 and 28.2.1981 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.2. The brief facts for the purposes of the present petition, as stated in the petition, are that Suit No. 36 of 1977 was filed by Sri Dhan Prakash, respondent No. 4, against the petitioner, under Section 20 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The relief claimed by the respondent, who was landlord of the premises in question was that the petitioner should be evicted from the accommodation in question as he committed default in payment of rent and continued after termination of his tenancy. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for the damages and mesne profit also. The respondent alleged in the suit that the petitioner was a tenant of the shop on a rent of Rs. 60 per month and that the rent from 1.11.1974 to 31.12.19...
Naveen Jamval and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Kankane and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC880; (2000)2UPLBEC1537
G. P. Mathur, J.1. All the threespecial appeals arise out of Writ Petition No. 41814 of 1999 filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Kankane, and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The controversy involved in the appeals relates to admission in Post Graduate courses in the State Medical Colleges. Under the current system, an entrance test is held and separate merit list of general and reserved category candidates is prepared. The candidates are then called for a counselling strictly according to their ranks in the merit list. They are shown the list of the seats which are available in different Medical Colleges. The candidate may opt for one of the available seats in which case the slot chosen by him gets closed for the candidates who are lower in rank. A candidate has the option not to opt for any seats, which is available at the time of the counselling, and in such a case he is kept in the waiting list. A candidate opting to remain in the waiting list is not considered aga...
Vishwanath and Another Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1228
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 22.4.1977/23.9.1977, 18.12.1976 and 16.8.1976.2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition are that Khata No. 106 of village Shahpur. Tahsll Ghosi. district Azamgarh became subject-matter of dispute in Consolidation proceeding under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. There were about 28 plots, which were recorded, in the basic year khatauni in the name of Ramraj father of the petitioners. Toofani, Chillar and Budhiram contesting respondent. As father of the petitioners died immediately after the start of the consolidation, the names of the petitioners were shown in C.H. Form 5. The shares of the respondents Toofani and Chillar were shown as 1/6 each. Budhiram was shown as 1/3 share and the petitioners were jointly shown 1/3 share.3. Objections were filed onbehalf of Toofani and Chitlar the contesting respondents ...
Balram Tiwari and Others Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1471
D. S. Sinha and Ratnakar Dash, JJ.1. Instant petition was filed through Sri C. P. Ghildyal, the learned counsel of the petitioners, more than eleven years ago, to be precise, on 29.9.1988, and was admitted on the same day. The order-sheet indicates that after the lapse of an interminable period of more than eight years, it came up before the Court for hearing on 17th October. 1996. On that date, the learned counsel, then appearing for the petitioners, sent illness-slip praying for adjournment of the case. Consequently, the hearing of the case was adjourned. Next time it came up before the Court on 14th November. 1996. Again the hearing of the case was adjourned for two weeks at the behest of the learned counsel of the petitioners. Thereafter the petition came up for hearing on 4th December. 1996. Unfortunately, the hearing of the case had to be adjourned again on the illness-slip of the counsel of the petitioners praying for adjournment of the hearing.2. Eventually, on 3.1.1997 the lea...
Suryanath Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and Anoth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1688
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Ballia.2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, which are relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made in respect of village Chchitauni Ander, Pargana Lakhneshwar, district Ballia in the year 1960. A compromise was filed between the parties on 26.4.1968 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9 of the Act with regard to khata Nos. 34 and 84 in which it was stated that the plots recorded under the above khatas are ancestral property and the petitioner had 1/4 share. The compromise was given effect to by order of the Assistant ConsolidationOfficer dated 6.7.1968 and petitioner was recorded as co-tenant in the khata...
Anwar Ali Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3086
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The incident is of July 1998 and I am informed that the trial has not even commenced. I am also informed that nowadays in Uttar Pradesh it takes ordinarily about five years or more to complete the trial. If a person is found innocent after five years (or more) the question arises as to who will restore those years of his life. This long time for completing the trial is itself an important consideration nowadays for grant of bail in most of the cases. Article 21 is also violated if the trial is not held speedily as held by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases.2. The F.I.R. in the present case discloses that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. This fact coupled with the fact of delay in even commencing the trial makes it now a fit case for grant of bail.3. In the circumstances let the applicant Anwar be enlarged on bail in case Crime No. 444 of 1998 under Sections 304, 307, 504, 506, I.P.C. police stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »