Allahabad Court November 2001 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.
Rajmuni Devi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC208; (2002)1UPLBEC630
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the order dated 27th September, 2001.2. The petitioner is a widow, who claimed the family pension on account of the death of her husband. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that in view of the Government order dated 24th February, 1989, the family pension of such employee is payable only to such family members whosebread earner had died after 1st December, 1989, whereas the petitioner's case is that petitioner's husband died on 31st August, 1987. This view is wholly arbitrary in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. The aforesaid Government order amounts to carving out a class from a homogenous class of persons who are entitled for the family pension, the basis of which is not permissible...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Damodar Dutt Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC306
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 8.4.1999. The petitioner was a police constable who was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 14.7.1993. Against that order, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which has been rejected. Hence this petition.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The charge against the petitioner was that on 11.4.1993 while he was on duty, there was an altercation between him and another constable Baburam in which the petitioner is said to have abused and threatened Baburam. However, there was no charge that the petitioner actually physically assaulted Baburam. In the inquiry, thepetitioner was found guilty of the charge.4. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot Interfere with it in writ Jurisdiction. However, on the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment is di...
U.P. State and ors. Vs. Jagpati Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC305
M. Katju and Kamal Klshore,JJ.1. Heard standing counsel for the petitioner.2. The respondent No. 1 is a police constable who was charge-sheeted on the allegation of misconduct and dismissed after enquiry. He filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. By an order dated 20.8.2001, the claim petition was allowed and the dismissal order and other impugned orders were quashed.3. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and find no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has held that the rules of natural justice were not complied with in the enquiry. It has been held by the Tribunal that copies of certain relevant documents were not supplied to the respondent No. 1, and hence, natural justice was denied to the respondent No. 1.4. We agree with this finding. However, in the ordinary course, we would have given liberty to the department to hold a fresh enquiry against the respondent No. 1 in accordance with law and natural Justice but it will delay the ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manni Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC271; 2003ACJ1317
Sudhir Narain and R.B. Misra, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 27.7.2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,37,000 as compensation to claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that the son of the claimants-respondents died in accident on 16.2.1996 caused by negligent driving of the driver of the bus No. UP 75-6566 when he was travelling in the bus. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. One of the pleas raised was that the driver had no valid licence.3. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver who had a valid licence.4. We have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the appellant who submitted that the driver had a licence but was not renewed till 16.2.1996, the date of the accident. The Tribunal found that in the insurance policy the condition is that either the driver should have licence or he shoul...
Sukhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1524
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.2. This revision has been directed against the order dated 22-5-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna allowing the criminal revision No. 151 of 2001 filed by Jiyut, opposite party No. 2 remanding the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for decision afresh after trial.3. It appears that applicants stood surety in a case under Sections 323, 324 and 325, I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kubersthan, erstwhile district Deoria (now Padrauna). It is further alleged that in the said case the applicants. filed certain forged documents in support of their solvency. During trial of the said case it was detected that the documents filed by applicants in proof of their solvency were forged. Accordingly, the complainant of the case Jiyut, opposite party No. 2, moved an application before the Magistrate concerned to initiate a proceeding against the applicants under S...
Balbir Singh, Contractor Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1070
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal Is directed against the order dated 14.7.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor, whereby he allowed the objections filed by the State of U. P. and set aside the award dated 14.9.1996.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant entered into a contract for construction of 2.70 meter fall on Chandak Escape Channel at Km. 0.475 in district Bijnor with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division. Bijnor. After completion of the work, he claimed the amount of constructions made by him from respondent No. 1. The amount as claimed by him was not paid. He gave notice to the respondents on 15.11.1992 to pay the amount. The matter was finally referred to the Arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings commenced on 14.2.1994.3. The Arbitrator after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence gave award dated 14.9.1996 directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 4,96,173 to the appellant. The appellant filed an application under Sec...
Rajwati Vs. Commissioner, Agra Division and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC189
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and A.K. Yog,JJ.1. Heard learned counsel. Perused the writ petition, counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4 and the rejoinder of the petitioner.2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 9th June, 1995 passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, as contained in Annexure-VIII to the writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner was a bona fide transferee for consideration and thereby the auction sale in her favour, which was confirmed and a sale certificate was also issued, could not be nullified without giving any opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order as stated in paragraph-24 of this writ petition.3. A bare perusal of the document appended as Annexure-VIII shows that in fact, a communication was made by respondent No. 1 to the District Magistrate, Aligarh vide letter dated June 9, 1995, intimating him of the nullification of the sale of half share of Smt. Munni Devi (respondent No. 4...
Dr. A.R. Sircar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC323A; (2002)1UPLBEC615
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioners are either retired or working professors of different departments of King George's Medical College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as 'the Medical College') which is a constituent college of Lucknow University as defined in Section 2 (6) of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. Statutes 12.01 III of the first statutes of Lucknow University mentions the Medical College as a constituent college. The medical college is also a faculty of the Lucknow University.2. The grievance of the petitioners' is that they are being subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter relating to post-retiral benefits vis-a-vis other teachers of Lucknow University in other departments/ faculties.3. The petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire length of service rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments to the date of retirement at the age of 60 years for the purposes of calculating pension including service...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Anarkali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC487
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 6,8.2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that on 8.4.1999 the deceased was dashed by rash and negligently driving of the driver of the Maruti Van No. U.P. 98 L 491. The deceased died leaving behind him, his widow, son and daughter. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds that the driver of the van had no valid licence. It was further contended that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. The Tribunal recorded findings that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Van and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the claimant-respondents are entitled the compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/-.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Learn...
State of Uttar Pradesh Through Forest Ranger Vs. Preetam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC49; 2003ACJ1853
Sudhir Narain and R.B. Misra, JJ.1. This is an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal which is reported to be barred by 273 days. The respondent filed Claim Petition No. 284 of 1994 against the State, the appellants for awarding the compensation on the ground that husband of the respondent No. 3 died in the accident while he was going on scooter No. UP 8-C 5134 from Kisan Nagar to his house at Akbarpur. The tractor No. URV 4099 belonging to Forest Department crushed him. He died on the spot. He was a constable and was getting salary of Rs. 2,656 per month. He died leaving behind his widow Kavita. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,000 as compensation. The appellant filed appeal against this order on 23.2.1999 which was barred by 273 days.2. The appellant has filed this application to condone the delay. It is supported by an affidavit of one Dinesh Kumar Singh. In paras 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit he stated that the claim petition was allowed and the matter was report...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »