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.
Om Prakash and Others Vs. Ii Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3173
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5.3.1999, whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the revisional court and the suit for ejectment was decreed.3. It appears that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default and material alteration diminishing the value of the building in question. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners, who filed their written statements controverting the facts stated in theplaint and pleading that they were not the defaulters nor they have made any material alteration which diminished the value of the building. It was also pleaded that they were entitled to the benefit of sub-secti...
R.P. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC2731
A.K. Yog, J.1. Petitioner is a member of Higher Judicial Service in State of Uttar Pradesh. He was transferred and appointed as Officer on Special Duty, (for short OSD) Legal Aid and Advice Board, Sonebhadra under order dated 11th October, 1999 (Arnnexure-1 to the Writ Petition). He got him relieved from Lucknow and submitted joining report at Allahabad on 12th October, 1999. He took over as Officer on Special Duty (Legal Aid) under High Court order whereby his office Head Quarter to be at Allahabad. In para 5 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner is continuously performing his duties as OSD (Legal Aid) both at his Head Quarter at Allahabad and at Sonbhadra vide Government Order dated March 6, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition). Post of Officer on Special Duty (Legal Aid), is created for due discharge of functions of 'Legal Aid and Advisory Board' at Sonebhadra for welfare of tribals. It is to be filled by a member of Higher Judicial Services, State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Ram Naresh Tripathi Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)3UPLBEC2754
A.K. Yog, J.1. Sri Bihari Ji Inter College, Aheripur, District Etawah (called the college at Etawah) is a recognised Intermediate College as contemplated under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulation framed thereunder. Provisions of Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 as well as U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission are also applicable. Ram Naresh Tripathi was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in the institution with effect from September, 1972. The said Ram Naresh Tripathi continued to work as such, Darshan Lal Mishra. Lecturer (Civics) in the college retired on June 30, 1992. According to Ram Naresh Tripathi Committee of Management resolved to promote the petitioner on the aforesaid post lecturer Civic on ad hoc basis vide Management's resolution dated January 9, 1994 as contemplated under Removal of Difficulties Order issued under Secondary Education Commission Act since there was no regularselectee recommended by the Commissi...
Dr. Swami Sachidanand Sakshi Maharaj Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ320
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner, who is a Member of Rajya Sabha, has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Reports of the following cases :1. Case Crime No. 481 /2000 under Sections 395/397/376 and 342, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.2. Case Crime No. 482/2000 under Sections 323/342 and 506, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.3. Case Crime No. 484/2000 under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.2. It is not necessary to narrate in detail the averments made in the writ petition and it would be suffice to state that the aforesaid three First Information Reports have been challenged on the grounds that they do not disclose that the petitioner is guilty of any offence; that the medical report contradicts the version given in the F.I.R.; and that they have been lodged for an ulterior motive and on political consideration. Though in the writ petition a g...
Ram Nath Gupta Vs. Prescribed Authority and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3085
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 passed by Prescribed Authority, district Unnao, permitting repairs of the shop to the tenant opposite party No. 2 of this petition.2. The aforesaid tenant opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority for permission to undertake repairs of the shop in his tenancy on the ground that the landlord petitioner failed to carry out the repairs. The tenant contended that requisite notice was served on the landlord for conducting the repairs. No repairs were made by the landlord hence an application for permission, before the Prescribed Authority, was moved.3. The Prescribed Authority, namely, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), district Unnao, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the material on record passed the impugned order directing the landlord to conduct the repairs of the shop, detailed in the order within three months o...
Abdul Rasheed and Others Vs. Anwar Ahmad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3355
Yatindra Singh, J.1. Property is one of the causes of family feauds--greed is another. Dispute among the family members in this case is perhaps because of both. This is how it has come about.The facts 2. Abdul Samad is the common ancestor. He had four sons : three of them are Abdul Rasheed. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Sattar (the appellants) and Abdul Majeed isfourth one. Abdul Majeed has five sons (the contesting respondents). Abdul Samad and his son Abdul Majeed were co-tenure holders in plot No. 79 (area 5 biswa) of village Tanda. They together executed a sale deed dated 3.7.1969 (Ex. 16) of this property for Rs. 1.500 in favour of one Abdul Majid--a stranger to the family. (Abdul Majid is different person than Abdul Majeed may not be confused with him.) Abdul Samad was apart from other properties, exclusive owner of plot No. 168 (area 9 bigha 9 biswa) of village Muradpur. He also executed a second sale deed (Ex. 1) on the same day, i.e., 3.7.1969 of this property for Rs. 10,000 in favou...
Santosh Singh Vs. Vice-chancellor, Allahabad University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001All63; (2001)1UPLBEC44
A.K. Yog, J.1. All these petitions were clubbed and heard together as jointly agreed by the learned counsels for the parties. Salient facts of the cases are not disputed.2. These petitions have been filed by certain students, registered bonafide students of the University of Allahabad (called the 'University') and its affiliated Colleges (called the 'Colleges') being aggrieved due toinaction of the Respondents in the matters of 'unfair means cases' and failing to discharge their statutory obligation under Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (called the 'Act, 1973') due to pendency of criminal proceedings under The U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (called the 'Act, 1998') and as a consequence thereof these students being prevented from further pursing their respective academic studies.3. These Petitioners are charged of using means while appearing in their respective examination conducted by the University / Colleges. First Information Reports have ...
TajuddIn S/O Mohd. Yunus Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ350
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra in Juvenile Appeal No. 114/2000 dismissing the appeal arising out of order dated 25-8-2000 passed by Juvenile Judge, Agra in Crime No. 274/2000 under Sections 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act rejecting the bail of the applicant.2. The applicant was apprehended by Police of P. S. Mantola, District Agra under Sections 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act. He was produced before Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, who found him juvenile and transferred the case before Juvenile Judge. The applicant moved application for releasing him on bail on the ground that he was juvenile and under Section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 he ought to be released on bail.3. The learned Juvenile Judge held that the applicant is juvenile. On the point of bail he held that the applicant was wanted in as many as 10 cases under various Sections of I.P.C., Goonda Act, and 110, Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was apprehended under N.D....
Satish Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)AWC3082a
S.H.A. Raza and R.P. Nigam, JJ. 1. Professor Satish Chandra Sharrna, who is working as Head of Law Department of Nanak Chand Anglo Sanskrit College, Meerut, being aggrieved against the order dated7.8.2000, by means of which he was asked to retire after attaining the age of 60 years, has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner also wants for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 16.12.1999 issued by the State Government which prescribed the age of superanmiation of the university or college teachers as 60 years.2. The main thrust of Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in accordance with the recommendation of the University Grants Commission on 27.7.1998 a consolidated statement based on letters No. F. 1-22/97-U.I. issued on July 27, 1998, (Annexure-I), September 22. 1998 (Annexure-II) and November 6, 1998 (Annexure-III) by Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Educati...
Shailesh Kumar Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: [2002]128STC585(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Shailesh Kumar Contractor, 136, Brahmapuri, Meerut, has filed the present revision against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut, in Second Appeal No. 451 of 1996 (assessment year 1992-93).2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a contractor and was awarded a contract for construction of building by the Central excise at Shashtri Nagar, Meerut, including water supply, sewer, drainage by the Central Public Works Department vide work's order dated December 23, 1989. The applicant had received a payment of Rs. 92,94,572 during the assessment year 1992-93. The contention of the applicant was that it had applied for compounding scheme in respect of this contract during the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and 1994-95 except assessment year 1992-93, which was accepted and, therefore, the benefit of compounding scheme should be made available in all the years in respect of the said contract. He further submitted that before the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »