Allahabad Court May 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.
Dinesh Singh Vs. District Judge, Ghazipur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ2034; 2000(3)AWC1921
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This first appeal from order has been preferred under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (d), C.P.C. against the order dated 6.8.1994 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting the application of the appellant under Order IX. Rule 13. C.P.C.2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of appeal.4. The facts giving rise to this first appeal from order are that the respondent No. 2 filed Motor Accident Claim Pelition No. 31 of 1989 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /District Judge. Ghazipur, for grant of compensation on account of death of Smt. Bigni Devi in a motor accident, which took place on 5.5.1989 at 1.00 p.m. by vehicle No. DEP 3099. Notices to above claim petition were served on the appellant. He appeared before the Tribunal on 12.2.1992 but absented thereafter. Ther...
Committee of Management Pinder Public Junior High School, Tharali and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1985; (2000)2UPLBEC1501
D.K. Seth, J. 1. Life of the Committee of Management came to an end few months back and an election was held but the Election Officer had declared the said election invalid and irregular and, therefore, the Committee of Management purported to have been elected could not be approved. Therefore, a fresh election was directed to be held in accordance with law by an order dated 24th March. 2000. Since there was no Committee of Management, by an order dated 7th April. 2000 an authorised controller was appointed. Mr. M.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order does not contain any reason and that the District Basic Education Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint authorised controller. He has challenged both these orders. So far as the order dated 24th March. 2000 is concerned, he contends that the order cannot be sustained since there is no specific allegation as to on which ground the election was held to be invalid. 2. I have heard Mr. Negi and...
District Judge, Firozabad Vs. Arun Sharma and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2280; (2000)3UPLBEC2275
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. This appeal, which was earlier registered as Special Appeal 'No. 620 of 1999 (Defective), is directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.6.1999, passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25349 of 1999 filed by the respondents herein for commanding the appellant--the sole respondent to the writ petition--to give them appointments in the next existing vacancies occurring in the Judgeship of Firozabad in accordance with law, with a further prayer to command the respondent not to make any fresh selection until they are absorbed.2. The record discloses that a copy of the writ petition was served on 17.6.1998, during summer vacation by the petitioners in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel of the Court despite the well-known fact that there are three special counsel for defending this Court and the subordinate courts in any writ proceeding duly appointed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The stamp reporter of the Co...
Gopi Nath Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2526
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The applicant revisionist had moved an application for adding himself as party plaintiff in the suit claiming that he is the landlord of the property which has since been disputed by the plaintiff who had filed the suit for eviction of the defendant in the learned Small Causes Court. This application for impleadment was rejected by the order impugned in this revisional application.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tej Pratap Singh contends that since the petitioner is the landlord, therefore, he is not only a necessry party but also a proper parly. The suit cannot proceed without him. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.3. I have heard Mr. Singh at length.4. This order was passed on 8th January, 1992 in SCC Suit No. 2 of 1989 by the learned SCC Court being the learned Additional District Judge, Ist Court. Ghazipur. No interim order was passed in this application. In the meantime, the suit might have been decreed. However, Mr. Singh very fairly...
B.D. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2675
Ashish N. Trivedi and P. C. Verma, JJ.1. We have heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Madhumita Bose, learned counsel for the State.2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage and we have accordingly heard them at some length.3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure-1) passed by Director Treasury, Government of U. P. in compliance of the G.O. dated 30.3.2000, issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of U. P., posting the petitioner on deputation foradministrative reasons at Sri Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, Varanasl, from the office of District Inspector, School. Dehradoon.4. The main ground of challenge of the petitioner is that the order of posting for administrative reasons is contrary to Rule 110 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules (contained in Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II) which, inter alia, provides that the order of deputation can be passed only with th...
Committee of Management Chaudhary C.R.P.G. College and Others Vs. Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1919; (2000)2UPLBEC1490
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated28th March. 2000, the petitioner's appeal was returned on the ground that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Relying on Statute 23.04 of the Meerut University Statute, he contends that against the order passed under clause (2) of Statute 23, an appeal lies to the Regional Deputy Director of Education after the order passed under Statute 23.02 is approved under Statute 23.03 of the Meerut University Statute.2. I have heard Mr. Upadhyaya and the learned standing counsel at length.3. The Meerut University Statute in Chapter XXII while prescribingconditions of service of non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges in Statute 23.02 prescribes that the appointing authority referred to in Statute 23.01 shall have the power to take disciplinary action and award punishment against the class ...
Om Prakash Vs. Superintending Engineer, Nalkoop Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR883]; (2000)IIILLJ1222All; (2000)2UPLBEC1449
V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on March 31, 1991 as Chaukidar under the Dying in Harness Rules by the Executive Engineer, Laghu Dal Nahar Division, Varanasi. On April 18, 1998 when the petitioner was going to office he met with an accident near Bus Stand, Varanasi in which he was seriously injured. He was hospitalised. He informed the Executive Engineer/respondent No. 3 on May 18, 1998 by letter sent under postal certificate that he was seriously injured, his Spinal Cord was affected, and he suffered injury in his leg, therefore, medical leave be granted to him. He was under medical treatment in Government Ayurvedic Hospital from April 18, 1998 to June 8, 1998. On June 16, 1998 he sent a letter to respondent No. 3 informing respondent No. 3 that he could not get any relief from Ayurvedic medicines and he being referred by Ayurvedic Hospital to Allopathic Hospital for treatment. Therefore, he requested that his absence be condoned. He remained under treatment in Allopath...
Ram Bharat Tewari Vs. Town Area Committee and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2186; (2000)3UPLBEC2583
Bhanwar Singh. J.1. The petitioner. Ram Bharat Tewari has filed this writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of his dismissal as contained in Annexure-1. Another relief for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties has also been sought for.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows :The petitioner was appointed on the post of a Clerk in Town Area Koiripur, district Sultanpur (hereinafter to be referred to as Town Area) tn the year 1975 and since then, he had been working continuously and discharging hisduties. He was placed under suspension pending an enquiry in the year 1991. The petitioner challenged his suspension order by filing a Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1991 and this Court, vide Interim order dated 7.3.1991, directed the opposite parties to pay his full salary. However, the enquiry against him was carried on and a charge-sheet contai...
Devendra Shankar Chaudhary Vs. Varun Kumar Chaudhary and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2339
D.K. Seth, J. 1. By an order dated 31.3.1995, an Injunction was granted restraining the revisionist from prosecuting the proceeding in Case No. T.249/29.10.1993 under Section 34 of the U. P. Act No. 3 of 1991 pending in the Court of Tehslldar, Chandausi and in mutation Case No. 291/1.1.1994 pending in the Court of Naib-Tehslldar. Chandausi till the disposal of the suit pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge. Moradabad in Suit No. 115 of 1994 filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act. This appeal has been preferred against the said order.2. The appeal was admitted on 29.8.1995 and an interim order was also passed to the extent that the appellant shall not take advantage of the order dated 31.3.1995 and prosecute the cases mentioned hereinabove pending in the Court of Tehsildar, Chandausi. Thus, the fact remains that the injunction was virtually stayed.3. Be that as it may, though the appeal was admitted but the records have not been called for by the Court. Chapter XII, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›