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.
Deo NaraIn (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2502
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedcounsel appearing for the contesting respondent.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.10.1998 passed by respondent No. 1, declaring the building in question as vacant.3. The dispute relates to building No. 86/382, Deo Nagar, Kanpur of which one Sri Jagdamba Prasad Awasthi was the original landlord. The said building was in the tenancy of Mr. Suraj Prasad alias Chhedi. The petitioner was permitted to reside in the building in question in 1955 by Sri Suraj Prasad alias Chhedi, the chief tenant. On receipt of the application for allotment of the said building, proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (for short, 'the Act') were initiated. On the directions issued by the Re...
Jayanti Prasad Dwivedi Vs. University of Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2742; (2000)3UPLBEC2760
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1998 of a learned single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 43786 of 1997 filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant appeared in LL.B. IInd Year examination of the year 1993, which was held in the year 1997. It is the case of the University that while appearing in the IVth paper on 9.4.1997, the appellant was caught red-handed and some printed material relating to the aforesaid paper was seized from his possession. A notice was given to the appellant and. thereafter, by the order dated 8.12.1997. the examination of LL.B. IInd year of the year 1993 in which he was appearing in 1997 was cancelled. The appellant preferred the writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision dated 8.12.1997 of the University but the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 17.8.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 8.12.1997 has been passed by the Uni...
Sudarshan Ram Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2865; [2000(86)FLR884]; (2000)3UPLBEC2096
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.1995of a learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant should avail of the alternative remedy before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal or under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. and, accordingly dismissed the writ petition,2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.3. The appellant was an employee of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. He is, therefore, a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(b)(iii) of U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 4 of the Act provides that a public servant can prefer a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal in any matter relating to employment. Therefore. the appellant has an equally efficacious alternative remedy of preferring a claim pet...
Bithoori Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2852; [2000(86)FLR954]; (2000)3UPLBEC2789
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri A. C. Verma. learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1, and Sri Mehbood Ahmad Siddiqui. holding brief of Sri I. M. Khan, representing respondent No. 4. Sri R. K. Saxena, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not present. 2. Petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Caste, was working as Clerk-cum-typist in the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur since 1984. On September 17. 1992 one Mansoor Ahmad, holding post of the Stenographer in the said Nagar Palika, died living behind his widow Smt. Zahlda Khatcon, who has been, admittedly, employed at the relevant time as will be evident from perusal of para 11 ofthe writ petition as well as para 21 of the counter-affidavit, sworn by Mohd. Arif Mansoor, respondent No. 4. 3. The petitioner claims that the post of Stenographer held by deceased Mansoor Ahmad was in the promotional quota In the relevant rules no particulars given but respondent No. 4 (son of the aforementioned deceased Mansoor...
Devendra Dutta Bahuguna Vs. the Secretary, Co-operative Development Fe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC2639
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri C.D. Bahuguna, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.P. Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The services of the petitioner an employee of the respondents, were terminated in connection with the alleged embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 31,588.99 and prolonged absence from duty.3. However, the petitioner was reinstated in pursuance of an adjudication by the Labour Court vide its order dated 21.5.1996 in his favour.4. The Labour Court had left open to the respondents to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the alleged embezzlement. It transpires that an enquiry was held by the respondents wherein it was found that. the petitioner had embezzled the amount of Rs. 31,475.49. Then the matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Garhwal Mandal, U.P. who passed an order dated 25.6.1988 under Section 68 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Act') directi...
Pappu Alias Shakil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4576
ORDER1. By means of this petition, the petitioner-Pappu alias Shakil has challenged the legality of the order dated 27-9-1996 passed by District Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' under which the petitioner has been detained.2. Along with the impugned order of detention the petitioner was also served with the grounds on basis of which the Detaining Authority formed his satisfaction for detaining the petitioner under the Act.3. Counter-affidavits of Detaining Authority; the Deputy Jailor of District Jail, Bulandshahr; Sri R.A. Khan, Under Secretary, Home and Confidential Department; U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Sri Sushil Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi have been filed.4. We have heard Sri S. G. Hasnain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. for respondents No. 2 to 5 and Sri K. N. Pandey for Union of India, respondent No. 1 and hav...
Radha Krishna Singh Vs. Commissioner, Village Development, U.P. and Ot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2863; (2000)3UPLBEC2759
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Parvej Alam Ansari, holding brief of Shri H. K. Singh. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P.. representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who retired as Block Development Officer of the State of U. P, on June 30. 1995, has not been granted retiral benefits for the period commencing from January 1, 1996. hitherto. Long back, to be precise, on October 31. 1995. he approached through his letter for the grant of retiral benefits. Later on. he moved representation dated January 12. 1996 before the respondent No. 3. A copy of this representation is to be found on record as Annexure-5 to the petition. Neither the letter nor representation was responded to. 3. The petitioner, therefore, moved before the respondent No. 3 by representation dated March 30, 1996. a copy whereof is Annexure-6 to the petition. This representation too went unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner moved representat...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR965]; (2000)IIILLJ1001All
D.K. Seth, J. 1. One Sri Sagwa Singh had raised an industrial dispute which was pending adjudication. In Writ Petition No. 3987 of 1984 Sri Sayeed Ashgar, the respondent No. 2, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and certain order was passed affecting his service condition. In view of the pendency of the dispute by way of abundant precaution, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33-B(2) read with Section 6-E(2)(b) of the U.P. I.D. Act. By an order dates November 29, 1983 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1975, the application under Section 6-E(2)(b) was rejected. In the said judgment, the Labour Court had held that Sayed Ashgar was not a concerned workman in the dispute between the employer and Sri Sagwa Singh. Therefore, on that ground the application under Section 6-E(2) was not maintainable. Thereafter, the Labour Court had proceeded to decide the case on merit and has ultimately found that the dismissal of Sayeed Ashgar on the ground of theft was illegal and unj...
Sumara Industries Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC357(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Sumara Industries, Kanpur, have filed the present revision against the order dated January 29, 2000, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, in Appeal No. 78 of 1997 (under Section 4-A).2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant claims itself to be a new unit established for the manufacture and sale of welding electrodes and wire cables, etc. It applied for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (now 'Trade Tax Act') (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on April 10, 1992. It claims exemption with effect from November 26, 1991 for a period of 8 years on the total investment of Rs. 28,56,165.76 and the amount of tax to the extent of exemption claimed was 125 per cent of the aforesaid investment. The Divisional Level Committee vide order dated December 26, 1995 had granted exemption to the applicant for a period up to November 26, 1991 only on the ground that the applicant had purchased five old ...
Devi Prasad Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ637
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 23-5-1984 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 8-2-1984 passed by Sri K.K. Tyagi, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 2267 of 1981 convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo 4 months R.I.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 5-2-1981 at 1.00 P.M. Sri K.N. Misra, Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, found the revisionist selling milk at Halsey Road, Kanpur. The Food Inspector purchased 6.60 Mili Litre Milk and paid a sum of Rs. 1.65 as its price. The milk was divided and filled into three phials which were sealed on the spot. Necessary documents were also prepared on which th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›