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.
Anil Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Collector/District Election Officer (Panchaya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3092; (2001)1UPLBEC204
A.K. Yog, J.1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record and para 10 as contained in the writ petition shall be ignored ; in its place para 10 as quoted in Para 4 of the supplementary affidavit be read.2. This petition has been filed by Anil Kumar Chaudhary, who was appointed as Tax Superintendent by the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Siddharthnagar and at the relevant time, his services were requisitioned by the District Magistrate/District Election Officer (Panchayat), Siddharthnagar, for the purpose of getting Panchayat Elections held under the supervision of the District Election Officer. Impugned order of suspension dated June 13, 2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition] has been issued in compliance with the direction issued by Election Commission dated June 13, 2000 (as mentioned in the impugned order itself - Annexure-1 to the writ petition).3. Petitioner has come up before this Court by means of the present petition and seeks to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226, Con...
Neeraj Kumar and Another Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Edu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3067; (2001)1UPLBEC82
A.K. Yog, J.1. The case involved question of general importance as to what shall be the result if a student fills up two forms from different places to appear in one and same examination in the same year conducted by the U. P. High School and Intermediate Board, and what shall be the consequence if the two forms contain same and correct information and, on the other hand, in a case where student has given incorrect contradictory information.2. In spite of direction being given by this Court vide its order dated August 16. 2000, no counter-affidavit has been filed. It is evident that the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U. P., Allahabad Board (called the 'Board') is not serious to contest the petition and has shown unexplained apathy to participate in the proceeding and assist Court in deciding relevant issues raised at the Bar for the purposes of final adjudication of the petition. The Court has two options today. One to Issue notice for contempt against concerned offic...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2956; (2001)1UPLBEC175
V. M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner a candidate for Special Basic Training Certificate Course (in brief (S.B.T.C.) has approached this Court by way of second writ petition for redressal of his grievance. The basic facts cannot be disputed, as they are clear from the documents filed by the petitioner before the respondents at one or the other stage. They are also mentioned in the Impugned order passed by the Director. Therefore, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for any counter-affidavit, but after hearing the learned standing counsel.2. An advertisement was Issued on 8.3.1998 by the respondents inviting applications from eligible candidates for S.B.T.C. as large number of vacancies were existing. Last date of receipt of application was 30.3.1998. Petitioner belonged to general category. He was eligible, therefore, he applied on 16.3.1998. Along with his application, he claims to have submitted mark sheets of the examination passed by him, from High...
Piyush Kumar Rastogi Vs. Smt. Archana Varshney Alias Vasudha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3171; I(2001)DMC36
D. S. Sinha, J.1. Instant appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 1984, is directed against the judgment dated January 18, 2000, rendered by the Principal Judge. Family Court. Moradabad, in Family Court Suit No. 37 of 1998, instituted by Smt. Archana Varshney alias Vasudha, the respondent herein, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby the decree of divorce against the appellant has been granted.2. For assailing the judgment under appeal, twin grounds raised by Shri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel of the appellant, are ;(1) the alleged violation of Order XVII. Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 : and (2) the alleged illegal rejection of the prayer of the appellant for permission to be represented by a legal practitioner. 3. Elaborating the first ground, the learned counsel of the appellant submits that the family court erred in proceeding to decide the suit inasmuch as the date on which the Court decided to proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of ...
Prem Chand Suresh Chand Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: [2003]129STC331(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. S.T.R. No. 727 of 1991 has been filed against the order dated March 26, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench-I, Moradabad, in Second Appeal No. 154 of 1990 (assessment year 1982-83) U.P. and five other revisions bearing Sales Tax Revision Nos. 728 to 732 of 1991 have also been filed by the same applicant against common order dated March 26, 1991 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench-I, Moradabad, before this Court relating to the assessment years 1982-83 Central, 1983-84 U.P. and Central and 1984-85 U.P. and Central. Since Sales Tax Revision No. 727 of 1991 was not listed for hearing before the court today, the applicant Prem Chand Netaji who is the sole proprietor and is appearing in person has made a request to get the said revision also and be heard and decided today to which the learned Standing Counsel has no objection. The file of Sales Tax Revision No. 727 of 1991 has been summoned from the office and is being heard and decided a...
State of U.P. Vs. Jai Prakash Bhagwati Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC100
ORDERSudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Court below appointing the arbitrator on an application being filed by the applicant-respondent under Section 8/20 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (in short the Act).2. The appellant invited tender for construction of Katiyari Siphon in kilometers 28.425 of E.G.C., district Bijnor. The respondent submitted its tender. It was accepted to the appellant. The parties executed a written agreement on 23.3.1984. The agreement contained an arbitration clause and was incorporated in clause 44C of the agreement which reads as under :'Every dispute, difference or question which may at any time arise between the parties heretoor any person claiming under them touching or arising out or in respect of this deed of the subject matter thereof shall be referred to the arbitration of Additional Chief Engineer of the project or any person nominated by him. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointe...
Biran Devi Vs. Sechu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2659
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. A learned single Judge, vide his order dated 6.5.1999, opined that in view of the Full Bench judgment (delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J., Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. N. Khare and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. N. Mehrotra, the first two have been elevated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court) in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge. Hapur and others, 1991 ACJ 186 : 1991 (1) AWC 213, this writ petition filed for quashing the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi, refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and that part of the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, affirming the same, is not maintainable, but as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon a single Judge judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. Special Judge and others, 1992 (Supp 2) RD 362, which, relying upon Dwarika Nath v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 and M. V. Elisabeth and others v. Harman Inves...
Union of India, Through Garrison Engineer (West), New Cantonment, Alla ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2904
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The Union of India has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Court below dated 30.5.1997 by which the award has been made rule of the Court and the application filed on behalf of the appellant has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant invited tender for constructing buildings at New Cantonment, Allahabad, in the year 1989. The respondent submitted tender which was accepted by the appellant. The work was to be completed within the time specified in the agreement. The respondent got the time extended and completed the work on 10.1.1990. On completion of the work, the respondent claimed that they were entitled to the prices of the material which he used for construction purposes and certain other things. This was not accepted by the appellant. The dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator. Sri B. M. Kohli, on 13.10.1994. He entered inlo reference on 1st November, 1994. The appellant also made various claims before the Arbitrator...
G.D. Sharma Vs. Praveen Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2931
V.M. Sahai, J.1. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15.7.2000 passed in Misc. Appeal by the tower appellate court. The stamp reporter has reported that court fee paid in the revision is Rs. 100. He has mentioned in his report that the revision is not maintainable in view of Full Bench decision in AIR 1979 All 218.2. Prima facie, the report appears to be correct. But the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri J. J. Munir has challenged the report and has relied on four single Judge decisions of this Court and has urged that the revision is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel urged that he did not file the revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the Full Bench decision referred in the report was not attracted.3. A Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal, AIR 1979 All (FB) 218, after considering the State amendment has hel...
Avinash Kumar Yadav Vs. Executive Director, I.T.i. Ltd., Naini and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2937; [2000(87)FLR466]; (2001)1UPLBEC162
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioner, who was employed on the post ofMachinist under the respondents, responded to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondents by making application dated 29.11.1997, in which the voluntary retirement was sought to be made effective with prospective date, i.e., 31.12.1997 in terms of the date prescribed under the Scheme. However, before the voluntary retirement could take effect, the petitioner, it would transpire, made an application on 9.12.1997 seeking to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents vide letter dated 29.12.1997 and by order impugned herein and in which is embodied the letter dated 30.12.1997, the petitioner was intimated that this application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme has received the seal of approval for his voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.1997 and accordingly, he was relieved of his duties in the company with effect from the aforesaid date.2. ...