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.
Vashishtha NaraIn Pandey Vs. Chancellor, Dean Dayal Upadhyaya Universi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC620
M. Katju, J. 1. The petitioner has alleged that he possessed a good academic record and was awarded Ph.D. Degree in Botany from Gorakhpur University in the year 1989 and he was engaged to teach M.Sc. (Agricultural Botany), Part-I Class since September, 1989 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. He was working as Junior Research Assistant in Botany Department since 20.11.87. By subsequent order dated 20.2.90 Annexure-3 to the writ petition, of the Vice-Chancellor, some teachers including the petitioner were appointed. The petitioner was also appointed through the aforesaid letter dated 20.2.90 on monthly salary of Rs. 600/- per month. The petitioner was appointed as teacher on temporary basis. The very fact that the petitioner has been described as a member of the teaching staff vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, shows that it has been admitted by the University that the work of teacher was being taken from the petitioner, though he was also doing research work. It appears that he continu...
Prem Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC619a
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel also.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6.11.2001 Annexure-16 to the petition.3. We have perused the impugned order. By that order the work of Dy. Commandant General has been taken away from the petitioner and was given to someone else. There is no allegation that the petitioner's services have been terminated or suspended or that he has been reduced in rank or his salary has been reduced. In our opinion an employee cannot insist that he must be given work. An employee is entitled to get his salary and other allowance but no employee can insist that work be given to him.4. No doubt in P.K Chinnaswamy v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 78, it has been held that a Government servant should be given work, commensurate to his status. However, this decision cannot be said to have laid down any absolute principle that a Government employee must be given work. If a Government servant is getti...
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR853]; (2002)1UPLBEC290
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Sharma appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for the purpose of making appointment on the post in question in Basic Primary School in view of the Judgment dated 28.8.1998 passed in the writ petition No. 30711 of 1997 providing the benefits of the reservation of it being a backward class candidate or in the alternative on the post of Vyayam Visharad. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner namely passed in writ petition No. 30711 of 1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-I to the writ petition. The said Judgment has been disposed of finally by a Division Bench of this Curt vide its Judgment dated June 11, 2000, which reads as under :'The writ petition No. 30711 of 1997 from which the aforesaid special appeal has arisen and all o...
Rajendra Singh Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1087
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Sharma appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for the purpose of making appointment on the post in question in Basic Primary School in view of the judgment dated 28.8.1998 passed in the writ petition No. 30711 of 1997 providing the benefits of the reservation to it being a backward class candidate or in the alternative on the post of Vyayam Visharad. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner namely passed in writ petition No. 30711 of 1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-l to the writ petition. The said judgment has been disposed of finally by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated June 11, 2000, which reads as under: -'The writ petition No. 30711 of 1997 from which the aforesaid special appeal has arisen and all o...
Ram Kewal Vs. Manager, Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC20; [2002(92)FLR13]; (2002)1UPLBEC727
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, thepetitioner sought a mandamus thathis date of birth has wrongly beenentered in service records, which maybe corrected. He filed arepresentation, in this regard, beforethe employer, which has beenrejected by the employer. Accordingto the recorded date of birth in theservice record, petitioner has alreadyretired in the year 2000. Now this writpetition for a mandamus commandingthe respondents to send thepetitioner for medical examinationand to assess his date of birth/age onthe basis of the medical result cannotbe granted as learned counsel for thepetitioner has not been able to bringto the notice of the Court anyprovisions of law under which he canclaim as of right such an examinationor employer is under statutoryobligation to send him for medicalexamination. In these circumstances,the mandamus prayed for by thepetitioner cannot be granted. It issettled that on the verge ofretirement, an applicatio...
Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC436
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J.1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2001, dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 135 of Customs Act and sentence of RI for a period of three years but reducing the fine of Rs. 5000 to Rs. 100.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on 22.12.1999 at about 1 P.M. the Customs Authorities were checking the vehicles at Mudila at Gorakhpur Sonauli Road. In the meantime, bus No. UP 53 G 6665 owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reached there. The above bus was stopped by the Customs Authorities and on checking the applicant Prem Narayan Sharma, who was travelling from said bus was found in possession of 2 packets of golden biscuits of foreign origin containing 6 Biscuits each weighing 1110.340 grams worth Rs. 5,05,204. It was being carried by the applicant in India w...
Roshan Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC190; (2002)1UPLBEC292
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Blhari,JJ.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, holding brief of Dr. R.G. Padia. learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner. and Sri Sandeep Mookherji. learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Despite due notice, the respondent No. 6 has not responded.2. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Thus, the averments made in the petition are unrebutted, and taken to be correct.3. By means of a notice dated 14th May, 1988. a copy whereof is Annexure-I to the petition. Issued at the behest of KabirganJ Kisan Sewa Sahakarl Samiti Ltd., Kabirganj, Pilibhlt, the respondent No. 6, the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 11,958 due on account of loan alleged to have been taken by him from the respondent No. 6.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the recovery in pursuance of the impugned notice is bad inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any opportunity before issuance of recover...
Gulzari Lal Rai Vs. Collector, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC20A
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. We have heard Sri L.P. Singh, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing impugned order of cancellation of his licence in terms of Rule 20 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2001 thereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 20 (2) of the Rules reads as under:'20 (2). The Licensing Authority shall immediately suspend the licence and forfeit the security deposit on abovementioned grounds. The Licensing Authority will also serve a show cause notice for cancellation of licence and the licensee shall submit his explanation within 7 days of the receipt of notice. Thereafter the Licensing Authority will pass suitable orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the licensee, if he so desires.'3. This content...
Kirti Overseas and ors. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC176
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad from taking any action for recovery of Rs. 93,88,386-with interest from the petitioner in any manner whatsoever including by coercive measures in pursuance of the orders dated 15.10.1999, 19.6.2001 and 6.9.2001. A further prayer has been made that Rules 48 to 51 of the Income-tax Rules be declared as null and void.2. The petitioners were granted Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 25 lacs and Foreign Bill Purchase Limit of the same amount by Union Bank of India, Dayal Bagh Marg, Agra (respondent No. 4) and an agreement was executed in that regard on 27.5.1996. In order to ensure repayment of the loan, the petitioners created an equitable mortgage of three houses situated in Mathura City in favour of the respondent-bank. Subsequently, the petitioners were sanctioned additional Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 19 lacs and Addi...
Committee of Management, Lal Bahadur Shastri Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC184; (2002)1UPLBEC587
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. On 14th December. 1999, the learned single Judge, before whom instant petition was up for consideration for admission, passed the following order :'Hon'ble S. Harkauli, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Registrar of the Societies dated 19.11.1999 by which it has been held that respondent No. 2 is valldly elected committee of management and petitioner No. 1 is not the validly elected committee.The election of respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been held on 21.3.1999 while election of petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have been held on 20.6.1999. The renewal of certificate of registration of the societies was done in 1991. Consequent upon the election, three applications were filed for renewal of registration. First application was by out going committee of management which did not appear to press the application and the application was i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »