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.
Prabhat Bhushan and Ajai Kumar Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2603
D.K. Seth, J.1. The respondent No. 3 applied for permanent permit in the route Muzaffarnagar, Charthawal, Gadikham. Admittedly, this route falls within the notified scheme in respect of Saharanpur-Delhi route. The petitioner claims to be an operator on this very route pursuant to permanent permit granted to him since 1982. When the scheme was notified, the petitioners were operating on the basis of permanent permit that was valid on that point of time. Mr. L. P. Nalthanl. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they had objected to the formulation of the scheme and was heard on the said objection. But despite such objection, the scheme was notified. Therefore, the petitioner along with many others had challenged the said scheme through a writ proceedings before this Court. The said writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in which an interim order of stay has been granted, and the same is still operating i...
Sayoom Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2678; [2001(89)FLR288]
Pradeep Kant, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Dying-in-Harness Rules) as amended uptodate. The admitted case of the petitioner is that his father, a Class IV confirmed employee in Government service died on 10.11.1972. The petitioner claims appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, under which Rules he approached the authorities for giving him appointment in the year 1997. Since the appointment was not being given, the petitioner feeling aggrieved has knocked the doors of this Court.2. The Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, came into force with effect from 21st December, 1973, a date which has been mentioned in Rule 2 Itself. These Rules have been amended in the year 1991, by virtue of which Rule 3 of the said Rules was amended, which amendment is not relevant for the present controversy. Rule 8 sub-clause (3) was also amended ...
Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba Trust Prabandh Samiti Vs. Thakur Radha Govi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2064
D. K. Seth, J. 1. Two suits were Instituted seeking the leave under Section 92 of C.P.C. In one of the suits, being Original Suit No. 2 of 1999, the learned District Judge,Mathura was one of the party, namely, defendant No. 9 filed in respect of the property of the Trust of Sri Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba Trust Vrindavan, with regard to the temple. in the other suit, being Original Suit No, 5 of 1999 relating to the Management of the property of the Hospital of Sri Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba, the District Judge was not made a defendant. In both the suits, applications for grant of leave have been filed before the learned District Judge who had granted the leave.2. It is contened that the District Judge has also granted injunction and the said order was challenged before this Court and the order of injunction was set aside by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. by an order dated. The petitioner as one of the defendent in suit has filed an application for transfer before this Court under Section 2...
Jagat Mohan Kulshrestha Vs. the U.P. State Electricity Board/U.P. Powe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC2040
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner had submitted a resignation letter on 19th December, 1992 and another on 26th February, 1993. According to Mr. G.C. Gehrana these two resignation letters were conditional resignations in terms of Paragraph 218 of the Hydel Manual. The petitioner contends that he had learnt from the newspaper report that the resignation has been accepted, but according to Mr. Gehrana the conditions for the resignation were not redressed. According to him without redressal of the grievance there cannot be acceptance of any resignation. If the resignation is conditional in that event it has to be accepted alongwith the conditions and not without it. Therefore, according to him the order dated 29th March, 2000 on which the resignation was accepted cannot be sustained. He then contends that paragraph 218 provides for appeal. The alleged redressal of his grievance and acceptance of resignation being simultaneous, the petitioner is deprived of his right of appeal, since accordin...
Padam Singh (In Jail) Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3907
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition was filed by Padam Singh, the petitioner, against his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The impugned detention order is dated 1-7-1999.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 1-6-1999 at about 9.30 in the morning a raid was conducted at the dairy of the petitioner in village Khanda, P. S. Barhan, District Agra, by the S.D.M., Etmadpur, along with Circle Officer, Etmadpur, Food Inspector, Etmadpur, and S.H.O., Barhan, with other police personnel. In the search of the dairy, it is alleged, large quantity of synthetic milk some chemicals and apparatus for preparing such synthetic milk were recovered. Since the petitioner was unable to produce any licence for the manufacture of synthetic milk as well as for the possession of chemicals, he was taken into custody. The prepared milk and other articles relating to preparation of such milk were also seized, vide its seizure memo. Some other...
Ravi Krishna Vs. Muralidhar Agrawal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2301
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The order dated 17.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional Judge (Small Cause Court). Allahabad in Execution Case No. 1 of 1992. In pursuance of the Misc. Case No. 178 of 1995, has since been challenged by the petitioner.2. Shri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no final decree has been drawn pursuant to the preliminary decree pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties on 4th March. 1955. In Suit No. 97 of 1949, therefore, the decree is not executable. He further contends that the requisite stamp fee was not paid for drawing up of the decree. According to the definition of instrument of partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act. a decree of civil court is included. The decree being an Instrument of partition is required to be on proper stamp paper. He further contends that a final decree is to be drawn showing the shares of the parties in respect of the property by metes and bounds. He drew the attention of the Court to...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR879]; (2001)IIILLJ1013All
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition at the instance of the employer was heard along with Writ Petition No. 3884 of 1994, Om Prakash Upadhya v. The Labour Court and Anr., filed at the instance of the workman and both were having the same award as subject matter of challenge.2. A dispute as raised relating to loss of employment of the workman concerned which ultimately ended in the impugned award granting reinstatement but refusing back wages. The workman challenged the award to the extent it refused back wages. The contention of the employer is against reinstatement as the workman was appointed as Apprentice, initially for one year from January 29, 1987 to January 20, 1988 and thereafter on the oral request of the workman he was again appointed as apprentice for a further period of one year between April 1988 and April 20, 1989.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner employer contended that as the petitioner's employment was under the Apprentice Act, he is not a workman within the ...
Amar Kumar Kundu and ors. Vs. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR868]; (2000)IILLJ838All
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By these two applications, the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28858 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 29619 of 1998 seek an interim order from this Court staying their eviction from the residential quarters during pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions. The petitioners in each of the two writ petitions have challenged the notice issued under Section ] 25-F read with Section 25-FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent company.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the employees of the respondent company and are not the employees of a particular project. Further, their case is that the project in which they were working is still continuing and, therefore, the impugned notices are illegal and bad. The respondent company had provided residential quarters to the petitioners for residing at site during pendency of the project. However, after completion of the project and after the impugned notices were, issued to them, they ha...
Quality Exports and Chemicals Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC665; 2000LC564(Allahabad); 2000(122)ELT361(All)
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.The petitioners are partnership concern engaged in manufacturing of menthol and DMO and are registered with the Central Excise Department for the same. On 12.07.1995 the Central Excise Officers inspected the premises of the petitioners and found that the petitioners were clandestinely clearing the excisable goods manufactured by them and there was excess stock of finished goods which was not accounted for in their books. The department issued notices proposing a demand of Rs. 53,55,862.15 paise as central excise duty on clearing of goods valued at Rs. 2,71,54,179.00 without paying excise duty, proposing to demand central excise duty of Rs. 33,22,722.00 on the basis of assumption of abstract of menthol produced and cleared by the petitioners during June and July, 1995 and further calling upon them to show cause why proposed penalty be not levied. The Adjudicating authority passed various orders whereby the goods worth Rs. 99,39,334.00 seized from the petitioners on 12....
Dhrua NaraIn Dubey Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC1945; (2000)2UPLBEC1746
D. K. Seth, J.1. By a resolution dated 10.4.2000 on account of ill-health of Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla, the respondent No. 3. the Principal of the College, the petitioner Dhrua Narain Dubey was given charge of Head Master. He was also appointed Center Superintendent for the Board Examination and was also entrusted with the responsibility of conducting home examination. In the said resolution, it was pointed out that Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla. respondent No.3 is entitled to receive the salary of Principal till 30.6.2000. By an order dated 29.4.2000, pursuant to the resolution dated 10.4.2000, the District Inspector of Schools. Siddharthnagar had approved the entrustment of the administrative and financial power upon Srt Dhrua Narain Dubey providing that Sri Dhruv Narain Shukla. respondent No. 3 will continue to receive the salary of Principal till 30.6.2000 and had also approved the signature of Sri Dhrua Narain Dubey, the petitioner as Principal of the College. Sri Dhrua Narain Dubey has t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »