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.
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC95
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. Perused the order impugned dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner hasbeen removed from the office of Up-Pradhan.2. Although present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I propose to decide this writ petition finally at admission stage on merit.3. A close scrutiny of the order impugned reveals that some irregularities were found against the petitioner in the meeting dated 31.7.2001 and five persons of the village have made allegations against the petitioner in the aforesaid open meeting.4. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice. Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it appears that since the petitioner has not given any explanation to the show cause notice Issued to him, therefore, he was removed from the office of Up-Pradhan.5. It Is to be admitted that the order impugned, A...
Neeraj Trivedi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC121; [2002(92)FLR784]; (2002)1UPLBEC65
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner alleged that he has done B.T.C. Training from Rampur while he was resident of Kanpur Nagar. He has applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary schools in pursuance to an advertisement published. 2. Learned counsel for thepetitioner Sri S. K. Srivastavacontends that the petitioner has beeninformed that since he is resident ofdistrict Kanpur Nagar, he ought tohave been obtained B.T.C. Trainingfrom Kanpur Nagar. Since he hastaken B.T.C. Training from Rampur being resident of Kanpur Nagar, his case would not be considered. 3. B.T.C. Training is the qualification which is the eligibility criteria. There cannot be any restriction for obtaining such eligibility criteria from particular place, if such a restriction is enforced, in that event it will be against the principles of equality and violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. In such circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standin...
Shiv Shanker Vs. Additional District Judge, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC126
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the writ petition, supplementary-affidavit, counter-affidavit in reply to the petition and supplementary-affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made three fold submissions : namely, first the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 114, Transfer of Property Act and no decree of eviction can be passed and to this extent. Judge Small Cause Court and Revisional Court under Provincial Small Cause Court Act have acted erroneously. Section 114, Transfer of Property Act reads : 'Where a lease of Immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrears, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within f...
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Addl. District Judge, Rampur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC327; (2002)1UPLBEC505
R. R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned senior advocate. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain assisted by Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, appearing on behalf of petitioner. Perused the averments made in the writ petition. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the order passed by Election Tribunal dated 5.1.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition as well as revisionat order dated 8.11.2001, Annexure-9 to the writ petition.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filing of nomination paper as a backward class candidate for the office of Pradhan, Smt. Harbans Kaur was required to produce a caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to backward class. Since she failed to produce the certificate of backward class, therefore, Returning Officer has rightly rejected her nomination paper and once nomination paper of Smt. Harbans Kaur was rejected due to non-filing of backward class certificate in support of her claim that she belongs to ...
Siel Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC304; (2002)1UPLBEC619
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties, we are disposing of this petition finally.2. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.11.2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition hasbeen passed by the District Cane Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, although the competent authority was the Cane Commissioner. We are of the opinion that this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of Section 15 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. It is only the Cane Commissioner who can pass such orders under Section 15 and not the District Cane Officer.3. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the impugned order was passed with the concurrence of the Cane Commissioner. The impugned order states that the order is being passed after discussions with the Cane Commissioner. In our opinion, the power to pass the order cannot be de...
Smt. Hem Lata Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1522
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 30,6.2000 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 428 of' 1999 allowing the revision' and setting aside the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 861 of 1998 rejecting the objection of the opposite party No. 2 against the summoning order.2. It appears that applicant, Smt. Hem Lata Gupta, filed a complaint against opposite party No. 2. Smt. Manju Rathi on 26.6.1998 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegation that on 29.5.1998, the opposite party No. 2 had issued four cheques of different amounts relating to Punjab National Bank, Nayaganj Branch, Kanpur payable to applicant. The applicant presented above cheques to her Bank for realisation. On 11.6.1998 she was informed that the account of Smt. Manju Rathi had been closed and, therefore, the cheques were dishonoured. The applicant, accordingl...
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC12
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. Perused the order impugned dated 12-9-2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Up Pradhan.2. Although present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, I proposes to decide this writ petition finally at admission stage on merit.3. A close scrutiny of the order impugned reveals that some irregularities were found against the petitioner in the meeting dated 31-7-2001 and five persons of the village have made allegations against the petitioner in the aforesaid open meeting.4. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice, Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it appears that since the petitioner has not given any explanation to the show cause notice issued to him, therefore, he was removed from the office of Up Pradhan.5. It is to be admitted that the order impugned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›