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.
R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and Others Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2192
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. Mr. R. S. Garg, who is working on the post of Assistant Director of Factories since1972, assailing the order dated 25.4.1997 by means of which Mr. O. P. Bharti-respondent No. 3 who belongs to reserved category (Scheduled Caste) has been promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Administration), and has been posted at Head Quarter, has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner also wants the order dated 15.11.1995 to be quashed by means of which respondent No. 3 was appointed regularly on the post of Assistant Director of Factories. Writ of quo warranto was also prayed for commanding the respondent No. 3 to show cause as to how he was holding the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Administration), The petitioner also staked his claim for promotion on the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Administration).2. The order dated 25.4.97 by means of which respondent No. 3 was promoted on the post of Deputy Director Factories (Administration) as well as...
Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2250; [2000(86)FLR322]; (2000)2UPLBEC1748
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certtorari to quash the impugned order dated 5.1.2000 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 6.7.1948 Instead of 6.7.1942 for the purpose of superannuation and hence not to retire the petitioner from 31.7.2000 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is working as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department in the State of U. P. When he entered in service, his date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate was 6.7.1942. However, he filed a civil suit being O.S. Wo. 63 of 1994. Virendra Singh v. State of U. P., before the Civil Judge, Roorki. district Hardwar and that suit was decreed and it was directed that his date of birth should be treated as 6.7.1948. True copy of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Against that Judgment. the respondent filed an appeal being...
Mohd. YamIn and Others Vs. Mulla Abdul Sattar and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2219
P.K. Jain, J. 1. The short question that has been raised in this revision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court fee payable by the plaintiffs-revisionists shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(vi-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, on one-fourth of the value of the share of the plaintiffs and on the full value of the share of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs-revisionists filed Suit No. 104 of 1997, alleging that the common ancestor of theplaintiffs and the defendants was one Nanhe who had two sons Abdul Ghani and Abdul Kareem. The plaintiffs are heirs of the daughter of Abdul Ghanl whereas defendants are descendants of Abdul Kareem. Abdul Ghani had no male descendant and on his death, he was survived by his widow and daughter. On the death of widow of Abdul Ghani, his daughter inherited the share of Abdul Ghani and on her death, her heirs and legal representatives, viz. the present plaintiffs succeeded to the share of Abdul Ghani in the ...
Ram Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4147
S.R. Singh, J.1. Challenge in this group of writ petitions is to the validity of detention pursuant to the order dated 26-6-1999 passed separately in each case, though on identical grounds, under Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any mariner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.2. The ground of detention pertains to an incident of murder which took place on 9-6-1999 in broad day light at 11.30 in which Upendra son of Mam Chandra was brutally murdered and Smt. Shanti wife of Mam Chandra and Anand, brother-in-law of Mam Chandra were seriously injured. Case CRIME number 308 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and case Crime No. 310 of 1999 under Section 25(4) of Arms Act, 1959 were registered at P. S. Loni, district Ghaziabad on the basis of the said incident. The detenu Ram Lal and Man Singh were arrest...
Lal Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2232; (2000)3UPLBEC2475
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred by 28 persons against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2000 of a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1955. of 1999. The appellants were not party to the writ petition and consequently, they have preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court, which was granted on 2.3.2000.2. Ashok Kumar Yadav and 5 others filed Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1999 against (1) State of U. P. and (2) U. P. Public Service Commission, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporations (Centralised Services). U. P. and to accord all other consequential benefits. The case setup by the writ petitioners was that an advertisement was published on 19/25 September. 1992. inviting applications for 153 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), for Municipal Corporations in the State. The petitioners made applications ...
Durga Prasad Tandon and Others Vs. Gaur Brahman Sabha, Nainital and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2848
P. K. Jain, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the Original Suit No. 155 of 1989 and the decree of the lower appellate court affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. In short, the facts are that the Small Cause Suit No. 18 of 1987 which was filed against the present appellants by the Gaur Brahman Sabha, Kashipur-respondent No. 1 was decreed in terms of compromise dated 24.7.1987. The present plaintiffs/appellants filed Suit No. 155 of 1989 for cancellation of the decree dated 24.7.1987 in the said suit on the ground that the compromise was obtained by coercion, fraud, etc. The trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of. Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs appellants preferred an appeal. The lower appellate court re-appraised the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the compromise decree wa...
Madan Bhaiya Alias Madan Gopal Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4152
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. By means of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition petitioner has questioned the legality of his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the order dated 23-12-1999 (Annexure 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut.2. Along with the impugned order of detention petitioner was served with the grounds on which basis detaining authority formed his subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioner under the Act. The allegations against the petitioner contained in the grounds, in brief, are that, on 11th July, 1999 he along with his companions kidnapped Swatantra Rastogi while he was travelling along with Arun Kumar Jain in Maruti Car No. UP 15 J 5317. It has also been alleged that petitioner and Arun Kumar Jain had conspired to kidnap Swatantra Rastogi and Arun Kumar Jain who was also the friend of Swatantra Rastogi, was taking him in his Maruti Car in pursuance of that conspiracy. Petitioner and his three...
Sri Ram Laxmi NaraIn Marvari Hindu Hospital and another Vs. Assistant ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1955; (2000)3UPLBEC2063
O. P. Garg, J.1. The core question involved in the present petition for determination is whether the Assistant Registrar, Firms. Societies and Chits, exercising powers of the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act (Act No. 21 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is empowered to recognize the elections of the office bearers of a registered society under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act or he has necessarily to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act, should there be a dispute or doubt about the elections of office bearers of the committee of management of the society. This controversy has travelled up to this Court by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the backdrop of the following facts.2. Sri Ram Laxmi Narain Marwari Hindu Hospital. Godaulia, Varanasi, is admittedly a society registered in the year 1930 under the Act. The office bearers of the last committee of management of the said societ...
Ram Pujan and Others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1950
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 8.1.1991 and 1.3.1988, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer. Consolidation respectively. Further prayer has been made for issue of writ In the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation) to reconsider the case on merit and finally decide it.2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners were recorded in the basic year khatauni and the respondents were given joint chak over plot Nos. 7. 22 and 108. Respondents moved an application under Rule 109A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules for partition before the consolidation court and the same was decided in their favour. On the basis of the orders dated 25.8.1976 and 12.1.1979, passed by the DeputyDirector of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer respectively, the resp...
Sunil Khan and Another Vs. Anupam Housing (P.) Ltd. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2290
P. K. Jain, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.1998, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra in Suit No. 306 of 1998 whereby the application of the revisionist for impleadment as defendant was rejected. 2. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1, Anupam Housing Private Limited, filed suit against U. P. Industrial Corporation Limited andAgra Development Authority for decree of specific performance of the contract as described in the relief clause and for future compensation/damages as may be granted by the Court. During the pendency of the said suit, the revisionist moved an application, under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., for impleadment as defendant on the ground that the defendant No. 1, had auctioned the plot in question to the applicant by auction dated 30th March, 1998, by accepting highest bid made by the applicants. The applicants bid was for Rs. 95 lacs. The bid has not yet been rejected and 25% of the amount of contract consideration has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »