Allahabad Court September 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.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others Vs. Manglesh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2986; [2000(87)FLR470]
Binod Kumar Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ. 1. The appellants, who were respondent Nos. 2.1 and 3 respectively in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997 assail validity of the judgment dated 21.5.1997 quashing the order dated 1.9.1992 passed by appellant No. 3 the Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and the order dated 12.3.1997, passed by appellant No. 2 the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, Allahabad.2. Vide order dated 1.9.1992, the writ petitioner who was appointed on ad hoc basis as an Accounts Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1,200-1,560-EB-40-2,040 was reverted in public interest and for smooth running of the officework as Copyist in the scale of Rs. 950-30-1,150-EB-25-1,500 as during that period, his work was not found to be satisfactory and his writing was also very poor.Vide order dated 12.3.1997, the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, Allahabad held that the appointing authority has powers to revert an employee from higher scale to lower scale, if his work and conduct is not satisfactory.3. The im...
S.P. Roy and Another Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3112
M. Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the publication notice dated 25.5.1993 and has prayed for a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in his excavation and transportation of silica sand.3. The petitioners deal with silica sand, which is a major mineral, as contrasted to ordinary sand, which is a minor mineral. A major mineral is governed by the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960, while a minor mineral is governed by the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, both these rules being made under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents harass them when they are transporting silica sand by requiring them to produce transit passes and pay transit fee, which is not required by any law.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that requirement of transport pass and transit fee for transporting silica sand, which is not...
Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3069; (2000)3UPLBEC2752
A. K. Yog, J. 1. Petitioner. Rai Singh, being seniormost Lecturer in R. P. Inter College, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad, a recognised Government aided educational Intermediate College seeks to place his claim by means of present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, on the regular vacant post of Principal of the College on the retirement of Cajraj Singh who was given ad hoc/officiating appointment on the post of Principal of the College on the basis being seniormost Lecturer.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of admitted facts, submitted that Mahesh Chandra Verma, respondent No. 5, who has been selected by U. P. Secondary Education Commission on regular basis after facing interview, etc. and having been found the best suitable candidate should not be permitted to join the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, expresses ignorance as to whether present petitioner, Rai Singh, had applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Commis...
Santosh Kumar Vs. Nageshwar Prasad and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3094
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. By means of this F.A.F.O., the appellant has challenged the order dated 13.1.1995 passed by Sri Bir Bhadra Singh the then learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Miscellaneous (Review) Case No. 12 of 1991 allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.2.1991 passed by his predecessor (XIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad) in Civil Appeal No. 267 of 1987 and fixing a date for fresh hearing of the said appeal.2. The facts giving rise to the present F.A.F.O., briefly stated were that the respondents Nageshwar Prasad and Smt. Gulab Kali, (hereinafter, called the plaintiffs.) filed Suit No. 770 of 1986 against appellant Santosh Kumar, (hereinafter called the defendant), for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over plot No. 287 area 11 Bigha 17 Biswas, 13 dhoors situate at village Bhalua, Tappa Manda, Pargana Khairagarh, Tahsil Meja, district Allahabad, with the...
Vinay Kumar Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3183; (2000)3UPLBEC2541
S.R. Singh, J. 1. Petitioners in the instant petition were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Accountant and Assistant Cashierrespectively in Treasury Office, Sant Kabir Nagar. The selection was held on the basis of examination conducted on 13.12.1998 for filling up the various vacancies of Group 'C' posts advertised on August 18, 1998, in Daily Newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara', it would transpire that vide Government Order No. 5-3-3287/10-97-93 (a)/97 dated 31.3.1998 and G.O. No. 5-3-3233/10-97/34-95 dated 30.3.1998, various posts were created for the newly established Treasury in Sant Kabir Nagar. The posts so created included four posts of Assistant Accountant, two posts of Assistant Cashier and one post of Junior Clerk falling in Group 'C' which were advertised in August, 1998. Written examination was held as stated supra on 13.12.1998. A Selection Committee was constituted by the District Magistrate. Sant Kabir Nagar under the Chairmanship of Additional District Magistr...
Sakhawat HussaIn and Another Vs. Cantonment Board, Allahabad and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3186; (2000)3UPLBEC2439
S. K. Sen, C.J. 1. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and have perused the records of the case.2. The contention of the writ petitioners in the Instant writ petitionis that the respondent-Cantonment Board Authority has without any justified reason, declined to Issue tender form to the writ petitioners. Further contention of the writ petitioners is that tender notice issued by the respondent-Cantonment Board is contrary to the rules and regulations of the Cantonment Board. It appears that Writ Petitioner No. 1 is partner of several firms and one of his other firms has already participated in the tender, but its tender was placed at serial no. 2. !t has also been admitted that the said firm (Karamat Husain Brothers) which participated in the tender is only sister concern of the petitioner No. 2 of which petitioner No. 1 is a partner. Since, both firms are the sister concern and petitioner No. 1 is one of the partners, therefore, the petitioners have really participated in th...
Pramod Kumar Kathak Vs. District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur and Anot ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2878
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and S. K. Jain,JJ.1. The petitioner has come up witha prayer to declare last portion of the proviso to clause 4 (c) of the Control Order as ultra vires to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which reads thus :'No application for renewal of a licence shall be entertained after sixty days of the date of expiry of the licence under any circumstances.'2. Sri Ramendra Asthana learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that as Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years limitation, thus the curtailment of three years period to a period of sixty days only has infringed the petitioner's rights to trade and profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.3. To a question put by us as to whether the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1967, are applicable to the authorities under the Control Order?. Mr. Asthana very fairly takes up a stand that they are not applicable.4. Thus, th...
Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs. Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Interm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3178; (2000)3UPLBEC2427
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition filed by a student of class XI is whether the Principal was justified in denying promotion to him to class XII because he failed to secure 25% marks in Physics theory even though he secured 40% marks in every subject and in aggregate as well.2. The petitioner, was a regular student of class XI of Manohar Bhushan Inter College, Bareilly. In home examination of class XI, Sessions 1999-2000, he was declared failed. Annual report card was issued to him on 15.5.2000. He had secured 240 out of 500 marks. He had secured 40% marks in each subject individually and in aggregate as well. But he was not promoted to class XII as his marks in half-yearly examination were very poor. In the combined result of half-yearly and annual examination, he could not secure 33% marks in aggregate. He had also failed in English and Physics. According to the counter-affidavit, he was failed by 2 marks in English and 12 marks in Phy...
Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC446(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Hindustan Coir Products Ltd., Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahr, was granted an eligibility certificate under the provisions of Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by the District Level Committee granting exemption from payment of tax on the sale of finished goods for a period of six years with effect from January 7, 1988 to January 6, 1994. The unit of Hindustan Coir Products Ltd, was financed by the U.P. Financial Corporation. On account of non-payment of instalments and interest by the Hindustan Coir Products Ltd., the U.P. Financial 'Corporation took over the possession of the unit and sold it to Super Coir India, Sikanderabad, Bulandshahr, on January 8, 1992. The purchaser firm, namely, Super Coir India made an application under Section 4A(2B) of the Act on March 4, 1992 before the Commissioner of Trade Tax for continuing the facility of exemption for the remaining period.2. It appears that the Commissioner of Trade Tax had initiated proceedings under ...
Avadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs. District Basic Education Officer and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2872; (2001)1UPLBEC167
Dev Kant Trivedi, J. 1. Applicants have moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 (wrongly mentioned in place of Rule 9) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dated 20.8.1996 whereby the Writ Petition No. 777 of 1983 was dismissed.2. Applicants Avadhesh Kumar Pandey and three others filed a Writ Petition No. 777 of 1983 for quashing the order dated 27.9.1982 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari,. Gorakhpur, cancelling the admission of Sri Avadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Duryodhan Das, Sri Praslddh Yadav and Sri Udai Mal Rao in B.T.C. and also for quashing the order dated 19.10.1983 whereby the Principal of Prem Chand Government Junior Training College. Gorakhpur, has discharged the petitioners from training.3. By means of an interim order dated 21.1.1983, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to attend their classes of the Second year.4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit.5. The following averments were made in the affidavit of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »