Allahabad Court August 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.
Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)1UPLBEC156
P.C. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, Saharanpur challenging the award dated 16.1.1997 passed in Adjudication case No. 30/96.2. A dispute was referred by the Government to the Labour Court vide notification dated 29.3.96 as to whether the removal/stopping of the workman Sri Om Prakash son of Sri Asharam on 1.11.1995 from work, was justified; if so, to what relief the workman was entitled to.3. The case of the workman before the Tribunal was that the workman Om Prakash worked in the crushing season 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 as Weighment Clerk. His work was satisfactoiy but when the crushing season 1995- 96 started from 1.1.1995 he was stopped from work which amounted to retrenchment though he was entitled to be allowed to continue in the crushing season 1995-96 as he was seasonal workman.4. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the respondent No. 3 was a temporary workman. He was a temporary workman as...
Dev NaraIn Dev Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ352
ORDERRatnakar Dash, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr passed in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 1996 whereby he set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC in complaint case No. 551 of 1996.2. The complainant, petitioner herein, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that on 30-5-1996 at about 2 P.M. the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') being armed with lathis came to his house, dismantled the roof and removed the rafters and other materials. He lodged a report to the police, but as no case was registered on such report, he complained to the Superintendent of Police. Even thereafter when no action was taken, he approached the Court by filing the aforesaid complaint. Learned Magistrate after having recorded the statement of the complainant conducted enquiry as envisaged in Section 202 Cr.P.C....
Prakash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2721
Binod Kumar Roy and S.K. Jain, JJ.1. These three writ petitions which have been filed by the petitioners who are residents of villages Sakipur and Rampur Jagir, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, are being disposed of by this common judgment since common questions and facts are involved.2. The prayers of the petitioners are to quash the order dated 9.5.1994 refusing to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Land Acquisition Officer (Samyukta Sangathan), Ghaziabad (respondent No. 3).3. Earlier when these writ petitions were heard, it was discovered that really there was no such order dated 9.5.1994 passed by respondent No. 3, rather merely communications by letters made to the petitioners and in view of the stand taken in the respective pleadings of the parties, it was considered necessary in the interest of justice to command the respondents to produce the original records.4. The records, however, were not pro...
Union of India Vs. M/S. M.S. Sachdeva
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2743
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. 1. Weare of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not a judicial function. It is an administrative one. Being designatedby the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Hon'ble Judge passed an order appointing an Arbitrator. We are of the view that no Special Appeal lies against the appointment of an Arbitrator. This position has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ador Samia Put. Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd. and others, 1999 (4) CCC 67 (SC). wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'It is now well settled that petition under Article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India. As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) of the Act acts in administrative capacity as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that this order ...
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad and Others Vs. Chandra Pal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2844; (2000)3UPLBEC2320
V.M. Sahai, J. 1. The main question that arises in this defendants appeal is whether the lower appellate court committed any error of law in decreeing the suit by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur.2. Shri S. P. Mehrotra the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the approach of the appellate court and urged that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was erroneously applied without setting aside the finding recorded by the trial court that the deceased was negligent in collecting 'kanda' (fuel) from beneath a place where high voltage wire was running and tn any case the amount of compensation awarded was excessive. Shri Ashok Gupta the learned counsel who had filed caveat defended the order and urged that the appellate court was not only correct in law but it acted leniently in awarding meagre amount as compensation.3. Before discussing the principle of res ipsa loquitur and whether it was correctly applied by the appellate court, to the facts of this case. 1 am constrained t...
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2833; [2000(87)FLR276]; (2000)3UPLBEC2683
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri P. N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Kushwaha. standing counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners who are tube-well operators are sought to be retired at the age of 58 years. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that since the petitioners were appointed prior to November 5, 1985, they were/are entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in view of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 56A Inasmuch as they were clearly classified to be Group 'D' employees on the basis of office memorandum No. 15/140/81-Karmik-1 dated February 27. 1982 according to which non-gazetted employees the minimum of whose pay scale was less than Rs. 354 per month were classified to be Group 'D' employees. In fact according to the G.O. dated 27.2.1982, such gazetted posts in the scale of which the maximum of pay was above Rs. 1.720 were classified as Group 'A' ; gazetted posts in the scale the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 1,720 were classified as Gro...
Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division Vs. Presiding Of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2908; (2000)3UPLBEC2314
O. P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.2.1999 published on 2.8.1999. Annexure-7 to the petition made in Adjudication Case No. 200 of 1997 by respondent No. 1 and it is prayed that the award in question be set aside and the subsequent order dated 15.2.2000, Annexure-12 to the petition passed by respondent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 155 of 2000 be also quashed.2. Heard. Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shashi Nandan appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 at considerable length. Since, both the parties have advanced the arguments touching the whole gamut of the case, it was agreed that the petition be decided on merits at this stage. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this writ petition on merits.3. The respondent No. 2 Surendra Mishra was admittedly appointed as Apprentice in the erstwhile establishment of the petitioner on 1st July, 1977. His ser...
Committee of Management, Bal Vidyalaya, Allahabad Vs. District Social ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2924
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 which is Annexure-J to the writ petition.2. The petitioner is the Management Committee of Bal Vidyalaya, Naya Pura (Stanley Road), Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 is the District Social Welfare Officer, Allahabad and respondent No. 2 Smt. Krishna Srivastava was a teacher in the school managed by the petitioner. The petitioner runs two primary schools, one at Naya Pura, Allahabad and the other known as Kanya Pathshala, Ramman Ka Pura, Allahabad. The Manager of both the schools is one and the same, namely. Shri Rishi Ram. The schools receive grant-in-aid from the Government through respondent No. 1. By order dated 11.12.1996, respondent No. 2 had been transferred by the petitioner from Naya Pura to Kanya Pathshala, Ramman Ka Pura, Allahabad. She challenged her transfer by means of Writ Petition No. 41225 of 1996 which was finally disposed of on 19.12.1996 with a direction that the petit...
Union of India and Another Vs. M.S. Sachdeva
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3082
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. 1. Weare of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not a judicial function. It is an administrative one. Being designated by the Hon. the Chief Justice, the Hon'blc Judge passed an order appointing an Arbitrator. We are of the view that no special appeal lies against the appointment of an Arbitrator. This position has now been settled by the Hon. Supreme Court in Ador Samia Pvt. Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd. and others, 1999 14) CCC 67 (SC), wherein the Hon. Supreme Court held that 'It is now well-settled that petition under Article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) of the Act acts in administrative capacity as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that this order is n...
Smt. Abha Agarwal Vs. Sunil Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2000All377
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant is the wife who had filed this appeal against her husband-respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 1sy November, 1999 passed by Smt. Shadhana Chaudhary, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in matrimonial petition No. 178 of 1993 (Sunil Agarwal v. Smt. Abha Agarwal), whereby the marriage of the couple has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband was the petitioner before the Court below.2. The husband founded the divorce petition on these allegations : The husband belongs to a very respectable family of Allahabad whereas the wife comes from a family of Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. Their marriage was solemnized at Allahabad in March 1988. Their wedlock gave birth to a male child. His father is an old businessman; his brother is one of the leading doctors of Allahabad and his wife is also a medical practitioner. He himself is a law graduate, but is engaged in business. He with his wife jointly lived in Bunglow No. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »