Allahabad Court December 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.
Gokul Dairy and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC370; (2002)1UPLBEC359
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, advocate, who has appeared for respondent No. 4 and also perused the record.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 mandamus commanding the respondents to get the claim of the bank satisfied first by sale of properties, which have been mortgaged, the details of which, are stated to have been given in the recovery certificate, contained in Annexure-3, not to use any other coercive measure, more particularly, the arrest of the petitioners till the claim of the respondent bank is not satisfied by sale of the properties. Further, to command the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery certificate, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on an application made b...
Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Nanku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1065
P.K. Jain, J.1. In all the three writ petitions common questions of law are involved hence the three writ petitions are being decided by common judgment.2. Prayer in writ petition No. 31875 of 1991 is to quash the award dated 23.4.1991 Tin land Reference Case Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 31, 37, 38 and 51 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 31876 of 1991, the prayer is to quash the award of Reference Court dated 30th March, 1991 in Reference Case No. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of 1986. Prayer in Writ Petition No. 19130 of 1993 is to quash Award of the Reference Court dated 31.3.1993 in Reference Case Nos. 17, 18. 20, 43 and 50 of 1986, 25, 29 and 30 of 1987, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 29 of 1988, 14 of 1989 and 2 of 1991 and it has further been prayed that the Tribunal in all the cases be directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner.3. It appears that vide separate notifications under Sections 357 and 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, vast tract of...
Uma Shanker Singh and anr. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1302
M. Katju and R.B. Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks.3. List in the third week of January, 2002.4. The retirement of age of both Central and State Government employees has been increased to 60 years. However, since the U.P. Power Corporation is a distinct legal entity it is not necessarily bound by the orders of the State or Central Government. The U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulations, 1975 (which has been applicable to employees of the respondent Corporation) prescribe the retirement age of employees to be 58 years but they can be retained till 60 years with the prior sanction of the Board in writing. Until an amendment is made to these Regulations the retirement age of employees of the U.P. Power Corporation to whom these regulations have been made applicable cannot be treated as 60 years.5. However, it has been pointed out that many officers of the State Government come on deputat...
Kant Kumar Singh Vs. Gomti GramIn Bank, Jaunpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC362A; [2002(92)FLR617]; (2002)1UPLBEC288
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has claimed that he has been selected for promotion from officer scale 1 to officer scale 2 in the respondent bank. It appears that subsequently a charge-sheet has been Issued to the petitioner making allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 1.22.000. In our opinion, until and unless the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry, there is no question of his promotion particularly, when the petitioner is an officer in a bank where the highest degree of discipline and Integrity is required to be maintained in order to maintain public confidence in the bank.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection committee held its meeting prior to the memorandum which has been Issued to the petitioner and he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sudha Salhan, 1998 SCO (L & S) 884, copy of which is Annexure-17 to the petition. On the strength of this decision, learned counsel for the pet...
Smt. Suman Verma and ors. Vs. Special Secretary, Nagar Vikas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC401
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary toinvite a counter-affidavit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of under the provisions of the Rules of the Court. In paragraph 45 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioners that the copies of the reports and the documents, which have been sent by the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate and Executive Officer, Chairman of the Nagar Palika have not been supplied to him. The impugned order acknowledges the report along with a complaint of one Virendra Pandey, Mahamantri Hindu Jagran Manch, Fatehpur, which was received by the respondents along with the report of Additional District Magistrate with the comments of District Magistrate concerned, but admittedly these reports and documents have not been made known to the petitioners before passing of the present impugned o...
Laxmi Rolling Mills Vs. C.E.G.A.T., New Delhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC84; 2002(142)ELT327(All)
P.K. Jain, J. 1. These three writ petitions arise out of the order, dated 30-12-97 passed by respondent No.2 Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-II and affirmed by respondent No. 1 in appeal by order, dated 29-8-2000. Common questions of fact and law are involved in all the three writ petitions. Hence, the same are being disposed of ,by a common judgment.2. Brief facts giving, rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners are engaged in manufacture of bars and rods of mild steel from rol-lable and re-rollable old and discarded rails wheels, fishplates etc. purchased from railway auctions without melting the same. The petitioners are duly registered with the Central Excise Department. The petitioners were availing the benefit of Notification No.202/1988-CE., dated 20-5-88 as amended by Notification No. 33 of 1992-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 in respect of clearance of their final products. The claim of the petitioners is that in terms of the said notification MS. round bars wer...
Patram Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC507; (2002)1UPLBEC792
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.5.1998 by which their results relating to the Lekhpal School Examination, 1996-97 have been cancelled.2. In pursuance of an advertisement to select the candidates for giving training on the post of Lekhpal. the petitioners appear to have applied. The petitioners application forms have been found to be valid in every respect for Lekhpal School Examination, 1996-97. They were permitted to appear in the examination, Admit cards were issued to the petitioners. The admit cards soissued to the petitioners is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After completion of the examination, so far the petitioners are concerned, their results have been cancelled by order impugned in this petition, on the ground that they are over age, i.e., they are more than 25 years of age.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that action on the part of the respondents besides being illegal arbitrary, ...
indrapal Vs. Shankar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC664; (2002)1UPLBEC556
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri Faujdar Rai for defendant-appellant and Sri H. P. Tripathi for plaintiff-respondent.2. This second appeal is by defendant against whom respondent filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of Plot No. 74 situated in village Dhamapur Abdalpur, pergana and tehsil Soraon, district Allahabad. According to the plaintiffs case, the said agreement was executed by appellant and he had received a sum of Rs. 4,800 as earnest money and balance of Rs. 4,000 was paid before sub-registrar at the time of registration of agreement. He was always willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant was not coming forward to execute the sale-deed, hence plaintiff sent registered notice dated 26.2.1985 whereupon defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Left with no alternative, plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit.3. In his written statement, defendant-appellant denied the execution of the agreement and further took a plea that since the property...
Dev Prakash Sharma Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC361; [2002(92)FLR619]; (2002)1UPLBEC667
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri H.P. Singh. learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the counter affidavit filed by Smt. Manju Singh.2. In paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated by Smt. Manju Singh, District Inspector of Schools concerned that since the Committee of Management has already passed a resolution, within sixty days from the date of suspension and submitted the proposal of punishment in the form of compulsory retirement of the petitioner Dev Prakash Sharma, thereafter District Inspector of Schools has fixed dates for hearing the petitioner and the Committee of Management, as required, before making the approval/disapproval to the proposed compulsory retirement of the petitioner Dev Prakash Sharma. This statement is contrary to law and cannot be accepted. The proposal of punishment of teacher by the Committee of Management can be approved or disapproved only...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC404; (2002)1UPLBEC319
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 3.12.1998 of U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the Claim Petition No. 2/F/111/51 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The petitioner was appointed as a peon In U. P. Paschmi Kshetriya Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in the year 1977. He was promoted as daftri and thereafter as Lower Division Clerk. On account of certain act of misconduct, he was placed under suspension on 12.5.1982. He was served with a charge-sheet and a disciplinary enquiry was held. Thereafter he was dismissed from service on 21.7.1982. The petitioner preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal praying that the order dismissing him from service be set aside and it may be declared that he continues in service. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner had admitte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »