Allahabad Court April 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.
Abhinandan Singh Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001All77
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. This petition was dismissed as not pressed on 29-10-99. The petitioner has now moved an application to recall the order dated 29-10-99 and to restore the petition and to decide it on merits. 2. I have heard Sri J. S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite parties. 3. The petition was filed through Sri Tej Pal Advocate. An application was moved to dismiss the petition as not pressed by Sri K. D. Tiwari, Advocate on 26-10-99. It was also prayed that the office be directed to list the petition. Sri K. D. Tiwari also filed his Vakalatnama for the petitioner. The petition came in computer list on 29-10-99 was dismissed on that date as not pressed. Sri K. D. Tiwari was present at the time of hearing of the present recall application and has stated that he was instructed by the petitioner to move an application for dismissal of the petition on the ground that it is not pressed. He further stated that the petitioner ...
Rajendra Singh and Others Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2006; [2000(86)FLR155]; (2000)2UPLBEC1741
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Having failed before the learned single Judge to get any relief in the writ petition filed by them, the appellants have preferred the present special appeal.2. According to the case set upin the writ petition, the appellant Nos. 1 to 27 completed their apprenticeship training of lineman while appellant Nos. 28 to 50 completed their apprenticeship training as sub-station operator. In January 1999. an advertisement was issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board (for short, the UPSEB) inviting applications for the post of lineman. sub-station operator (technical grade-II) and labour. The advertisement (Annexure-110 to the writ petition) laid down that the applicants should be registered with employment exchange and. for the purpose of selection, a written examination will be held. The appellants claim that in pursuance to the advertisement, they made applications for the posts in question. The main grievance of the appellants is that having undergone apprenticeship trai...
Pushkar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1905
D. K. Seth, J. 1. Mr. S. R. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings under Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the decision of the Assistant Collector and the Collector is perserve and as such it is to be quashed. He has based his submission of perversity on the ground that the petitioner's house is situated in plot No. 518 and not in plot No. 514, which is alleged to be the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. According to him, plot No. 518 does not belong to Gaon Sabha. Therefore, without a survey commission and inspection determining as to whether the petitioner's structure stood situated in plot No. 514 or plot No. 518, no decision could be arrived at. Secondly, he contends that there was no evidence that the petitioner had ever encroached plot No. 514. Therefore, the finding is wholly perverse. The third point urged by him is that despite interim order, no counter-affidavit having been filed, the factual aspect cannot b...
S.C. Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC1900
O.P. Garg and S. Harkauli, JJ.1. The core question, which has been canvassed in this writ petition is whether the officers of the Indian Administrative Service, Labour and other departments who have never discharged judicial functions are legally capable of manning the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was pointed out that there are 19 Labour Courts and 6 Industrial Tribunals in the State of U.P. and except for one, all are being presided over by the officers of the administrative, labour and other departments. It was urged that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharahstra v. Labour Law Practitioners Association, AIR 1998 SC 1233, the said Tribunals and Courts cannot be presided over by those officers who are not qualified to serve as Judges under Article 236 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counse...
Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ316
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. In this case the service of the notice to engage another counsel in place of his earlier counsel Sri Keshav Sahai was served upon the application in pursuance to the order dated 15-10-1999 on 10-11- 1999. This fact is available from the report of Chief Metro-politan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, dated 18-11-1999. The applicant has not engaged any other counsel. In this view of the matter, the hearing of this revision is taken up with the help of learned state counsel.2. I have examined both the judgments of the conviction. In the present case, the conviction has been based solely on the ground that Gajar Ka Haluwa, sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant's shop, was coloured with a prohibited coal-tar dye. Use of some coaltar dye is permitted by Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Any dye other than one referred to in Rule 28 cannot be used. In the circumstances, the applicant was convicted by the trial Court and his appea...
Madan Mohan Upreti Vs. Smt. Khashti Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ338
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. List has been revised yet learned counsel for the opposite Party is not present in Court.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the circumstances have changed. In so far as it relates to the wife. According to him she is now earning a sum of Rs. 725/- per month as salary from Kasturba Mahila Uththaan Mandal, Kumaun, Kausani, district Almorah. This is a total change in the status of the wife who had been allowed maintenance by the Judicial Magistrate at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself. It was increased to a sum of Rs. 400/- per month by the revisional Court on her revision.3. In Section 125 Cr.P.C. it is very clearly indicated that any person i.e. wife, children or parents are entitled to maintenance allowance if any one of them is neglected or refused to be maintained if they are unable to maintain themselves. According to Sub Clause...
Naudurga Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC327(All)
P.K. Jain, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. The revisionist was granted registration both under Central Sales Tax Act as well as U.P. Trade Tax Act under Section 8-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. It appears that a survey was conducted by the Trade Tax Officer on the business premises of the revisionist on 13th November, 1999. It was found that business premises were closed and the landlord had told that no business was conducted by the dealer. The Trade Tax Officer passed order of cancellation of the registration under Section 8-A(1-B) of the Act. The revisionist filed appeal against the order; however, the appeal was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for reconsideration. Both the department as well as the dealer, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, filed second appeals. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the revi...
State of U.P. Vs. Bikrama Kandu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3842
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. against the order of acquittal dated 12-5-1979 passed in S.T. No. 275 of 1978 by Sri Ruri Mal, Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. By the aforesaid judgment the accused persons, viz. Bikarama Kandu, Rajendra Singh, Ramesh Rai, Sudhir Rai and Bijay Bahadur Rai, were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C.2. We have heard Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and Sri R. P. Yadav holding brief of Sri C. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :The complainant Shambhoo Nath Sinha (P.W. 1) is resident of village Karimuddinpur. He is a Homeopathic Practitioner. His Homeopathic Clinic is situated in the Bazar of the village. In the vicinity of the Clinic of complainant there were several shops on either side of the road. The residential premise of the complainant/informant was also there at some dist...
Rattan Anmol Singh and Another Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Au ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1718; (2000)2UPLBEC1261
Binod Kumar Roy and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Srt Shambhu Chopra learned counsel for the writ petitioners of C. M. W. P. No. 10281 of 1999, informs us that since his name was printed incorrectly as B. Chopra in the Court's daily cause list dated 15.5.1999 and hence he could not bona fide mark the daily cause list and, thus, the default was not wilful. He also takes up a ground that in misprinting his name in the daily cause list, the mistake was of the Court's office and, thus, it will be in the interest of justice to restore back the writ petition to its original file and number under our inherent powers. Mrs. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents raises a technical objection that since this application has been filed for the restoration of the Restoration Application dated 15.3.2000. the praye...
Executive Engineer, Garhwal Jal Sansthan and anr. Vs. Chhotey Singh an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR909]; (2000)IIILLJ826All
Aloke Chakrabarti, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gopal Narain learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 workman. 2. Main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that being a daily wager the respondent No. 1 is not a workman within the meaning of the Act. The second contention is that as the workman worked under the contractor his service under the petitioners came to an end and, therefore, the impugned award not considering the aforesaid aspect is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that in view of the definition of workman in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act there is no bar to a daily wager to approach the Labour Court being treated as a workman. With regard to question of employment under the contractor relevant facts in the award have been referred to in support of the contention of the workman. 4. After considering the aforesaid aspects contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »