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.
Constable Firoz Khan Vs. Inspector General of Police, Bareilly and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2954; [2000(87)FLR452]; (2000)3UPLBEC2456
A. K. Yog, J. 1. All the respondents are represented by the standing counsel and writ petition can be disposed of finally as the time likely for final hearing of the case will be the same as or deciding 'stay application' ; I propose to decide the writ petition finally as contemplated under Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court.2. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in spite of several opportunities being given by the Court.3. On perusing the petition and the documents annexed therewith, it is apparent that the facts stated in the petition are matter of record.4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.5. Petitioner was employed as constable in the Department of Police. U. P. Government. At the relevant time, he was serving as constable (No. 88] ever since, he was appointed in the year 1968. He completed 28 years of his service with unblemished record as stated in (paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition).6. According to the petitioner, ther...
Har Karan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3192; (2001)1UPLBEC84
A. K. Yog, J.1. Learned standing counsel states that counter-affidavit has not been filed and further time be granted. No reason disclosed. Time and again, this Court has made it clear that adjournment cannot be granted on mere asking and in routine manner. The tendency to assume that case shall be adjourned even on the excuse of drop of hat must be checked. Request for granting time is rejected.2. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Radhey Mohan Pandey and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (18) ALR 302, and in Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Rajni Vali, JT (2000) 1 SC 159 (Paras 6 to 10).3. Petition is allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court....
Rajendra Bahadur Katiyar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR837]; (2000)3UPLBEC2757
A.K. Yog, J.1. Rajendra Bahadtir Katiyar and Mohan Singh Bisht, two petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as having been regularised with effect from 22.3.1984 or in the alternative from the date their juniors have been regularised in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, and grant them all 'consequential benefits including seniority and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of higher pay scale prescribed from time to time including Government Order dated 15.10.1988, copies of which have been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure Nos. 5 and 9 to the petition. Petitioners claim to have submitted their representations for aforesaid relief dated 19.12.1994 (Annexure 7 to the writ peti...
Dinesh Chandra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ318
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 28-9-1999 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Special Session Trial No. 7 of 1999 summoning the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and issuing non-bailable warrant and process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against him.2. The opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and some other persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(iv) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On the basis of above report a case at crime No. 50 of 1998 was registered. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against six persons. No charge sheet was submitted against applicant. After examination of P.W. 1 respondent No. 2 moved an application for summoning the applicant and one Lala Ram in the said case for trial along with the other accused on the ground that she had lodged report against them and the witnesses also disclosed their involvement in their stat...
Km. Meenakshi Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ395
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in above writ petitions and therefore, all the above writ petitions are taken up together for disposal for which the learned counsel for the parties have no objection.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to above writ petitions are as below :-Late Karmendra Narain Agrawal husband of Smt. Shashi Agarwal and father of Km. Meenakshi Agarwal and Manoj Narain Agarwal owned some property known as Prag Agricultural Farm, Gokul Nagar, P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. D.S. Sirohi, R.K. Yadav, Hanspal and Munna Lal were employees of late Karmendra Narain Agarwal, who managed the property owned by him Km. Meenakshi Agarwal also owned a theatre known as Meenakshi Theatre, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh. On the death of Karmendra Narain Agarwal some dispute regarding property of the said Firm arose between widow on one side and son and daughter on the other side. Civil and revenue litigations were also going on between the parties...
Salim S/O Karim Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ401
ORDER1. Appellant-Saleem has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Hafiz Ahmad on 13-11-78 at about 4.30 p.m. at Ramlila Ground in Village Ghatamapur within Police Circle Kotwali, Rampur.2. Undisputedly on 13-11-78 'Kite Flying' games were going on in Ramlila Ground between Moradabad and Rampur districts. Appellant-Saleem and deceased-Hafiz both were present in the said ground for looting kites and Manjha-dor (Cord of Kite). At about 4.30 p.m. the accused Saleem started looting Manjha of the side of deceased-Hafiz, which was objected by the deceased. An altercation then ensued between the accused and Hafiz. The accused was having a stick in his hand, which was being used for collecting Manjha/dor. He tried to strike the same on Hafiz which he warded off with his hand. Thereafter both deceased and accused grappled with each other and during grappling accused whipped out a dagger from the phainth of...
Surya Kumar Tripathi and Others Vs. District Basic Education Officer, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC199; (2001)1UPLBEC84a
A. K. Yog, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. 2. Vide order dated 19.2.1998 learned standing counsel was granted time to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed and there is no prayer for grant of time. Perused the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties, particularly, in view of the interim order dated 19.2.1998. 3. The petitioners claim to be duly appointed members of the teaching staff of a recognised Junior High School on 'grant-in-aid' list and getting salary in accordance with law under U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The institution was upgraded upto High School level. Salary of the Staff of the College has been stopped on the pretext that the institution has gone out of the purview of Act, 1978 and is governed by U. P. Intermediate Education Act and since it does not get grant-in-aid, payment of Salaries Act, 1971, is not applicable to ...
Shashi Bhushan Kumar Vs. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Al ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2947; (2001)1UPLBEC165
S.R. Singh and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. Heard Sri W. H. Khan for the petitioner and Sri B. K. Bist for the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission and the learned standing counsel representing the State.2. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 27, 28, 29 issued by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission. Allahabad in National Daily including Times of India' dated 5.7.2000 the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The application was sent through Speed Post on 31.7.2000 from Lohiya Nagar Post Office, Patna. According to the advertisement aforestated, the last date for receipt of application was 5.8.2000 as would be evident from Clause III of the advertisement which reads as under :^^fu/kkZfjr vkosnu i= iw.kZ :is.kLogLrfyfi esa ikfjr dj lfpo m-iz- mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx] 18&,] U;k; ekxZ]bykgkckn& 211 001 dks fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk 5-8-2000 rd iathr iklZy LihMiksLV ls vfuok;Zr% izkIr gks tkuk pkfg, A vU; fdlh ek/;e ls vkosnu i= Lohdkj ughgksxk A fu/kkZfjr vkosn...
NavIn Chandra Agarwal Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Nainital and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3070
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the Act), and is directed against the order dated 2.8.2000 allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Nainital, dated 25.5.1998 whereby the objection against the order of allotment dated 9.9.1992 made in favour of petitioner was rejected.2. The disputes relates to a shop owned by respondent No. 3, Om Prakash Agarwal situated in Mohalla Rahamkhani, Doctor's Lane, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar which was in occupation of the respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Bhutani as a tenant. On an application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the shop in dispute, proceedings were initiated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and submit a...
R.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC422(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. R.K. Industries, Muzaffarnagar, has filed the present revision against the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar Bench, Muzaffarnagar, in second appeal No. 709 of 1985 (1977-78), relating to proceeding under Section 15-A(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of crushers and its parts. During the assessment year 1977-78, it had purchased spare parts and machineries as well as iron steel against form III-B. The penalty proceeding under Section 15-A(1)(1) was initiated and a sum of Rs. 12,000 was imposed as penalty. However, in the first appeal filed by the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had set aside the penalty. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Commissioner of Trade Tax has preferred appeal under Section 10 of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »