Allahabad Court March 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.
Rama Shanker Mishra Vs. Joint Director of Education, Varanasi and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1294; (2001)2UPLBEC1220
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner. Rama Shanker Mishra, has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated27.4.2000 passed by the Joint Director of Education. Varanasi Region, Varanasi, respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure-20 to the writ petition. He further seeks a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner, as ad hoc/officiating Principal of Jai Hind Inter College, Tezi Bazar district Jaunpur.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present petition are that in the district of Jaunpur, there is a recognized institution known as Jai Hind Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the college), which is situated in Tezi Bazar, district Jaunpur, The college is duly recognized under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). ...
Anil Kumar and Another Vs. Sri Chandra Shekhar Azad University, Kanpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1382
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 113 of 2000 by which the matter has beenremanded for re-decision of application 6C. The Stamp Reporter has reported that In view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others. AIR 1979 All 218, the revision is not maintainable.2. I have heard Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists.3. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of Hon'ble D. K. Seth. J. dated 21.12.1999 passed in Civil Revision No. 540 of 1999. In this case, the above decision of the Full Bench was distinguished and it was observed that the revision against the order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the court below is not maintainable. That the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has no relevance with regards to the words 'case arising out of the original suit' as used in Section 11...
Jai Jagdambe Malleable (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. U.P. Power Corporatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1703
Pradeep Kant and Naseemuddin, JJ.1. The petitioner No. 1, which is said to be a Company, of which petitioner No. 2 is the Director, have approached this Court challenging the Circular dated 15.9.1998 and7.10.1999 and, also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parlies not to impose any peak hour penally on the ground of M.R.I. Report (Meter Reading Inspection Report). The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the penalty for consuming the electricity during peak hours can only be imposed after making personal Inspection by the officers who have been named in Para 9 of the U. P. Electricity (Regulation of Distribution, Consumption and Use) Order, 1977, as amended on 30th April, 1984 by means of a notification dated 30th April. 1984. The Circulars, therefore, which provide for imposing penalty for using electricity during peak hours on the basis of Meter Reading Inspection Report are bad in law and cannot be sustained. From a per...
Anand Agarwal and Others Vs. Balram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1183
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. Instant First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 37(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996. [hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act). It is directed against judgment and order dated 19.2.2001 passed in Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2001 filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. By the impugned order, the District Judge, Varanasi has allowed the application and has restrained the appellants from carrying on business of dissolved firm in the name and style 'M/s. Kanhaiya Swaran Kala Kendra' with its assets and using goodwill. By the impugned order, the Arbitrator appointed by the parties was also appointed Receiver to prepare inventory of the assets and stocks of the aforesaid firm. The Receiver was also directed to take the account books of the firm in his custody and to transact further business of the firm only if it is necessary for the winding up of the affairs of the firm. It was also ordered that Arbitrator will decide the dispute regarding d...
Santosh Kumar Sonkar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1220; [2001(89)FLR846]; (2001)2UPLBEC1429
A. K. Yog, J.1. Santosh Kumar Sonkar. Sidhnath Pal and Raj Kishore Singh (petitioners) have filed this petition claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the letter of appointment after initiating process of selection forthwith on the post of Lower Division Clerk and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to submit a fresh report before this Hon'ble Court in the matter of sanctioned vacancy of 160 post and its mode of filling up amongst daily wages employees by adjusting them in Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as well as Backwards Class quota including in general quota.2. At the outset, it may be stated that the second relief has lost its efficacy. Contesting respondents have filed counter-affidavit and three supplementary counter-affidavits (the original of IIIrd supplementary counter-affidavit is not on record but the typed copy of it has been supplied by learned counsel for the respondents and it shall be retained on record.3- The facts in brief are that...
islam Alias IslamuddIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2846
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.2. I have gone through both the judgments one of the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Jaunpur dated 11-3-1998 as well as of the revisional Court dated 19-1-2001. On merits learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to assail the judgments of the two courts. The trial Court has only granted maintenance to the minor daughter. So far as the wife was concerned he was of the opinion that she is not entitled to maintenance and has refused to allow maintenance on the ground that she was divorced by the husband before filing of the present application for maintenance and therefore her application is not entertainable under Section 125, Cr.P.C. It has also been held that she was living without any valid reason away from the company of her husband and the applicant has never declined to maintain her. Moreover, she is permitted under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) Act, 1986 to claim maintenance from the Waqf B...
Hakim Singh Vs. Ram Sanehi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1118
B. K. Rathi, J.1. Both of these appeals arise out of common Judgment and decree, dated 20.11.1997 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge. Agra. These appeals Involve the same questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondents of Appeal No. 279 of 1998 (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, which was Suit No. 210 of 1978. Their case is that on 20.8.1977. the appellant of Appeal No. 279 of 1998 Hakim Singh (hereinafter called as appellant), executed an agreement to sell the agricultural land of Khasra Plot No. 129, area 10 Bighas, 4 Biswas and three Biswansis situatedin village Alampur Jarkhi, district Firozabad for Rs. 1,16,000. Rs. 5,000 were paid advance before the execution of the agreement deed and Rs. 10,000 were paid to the appellants at the time of the registration. The agreement was that the sale deed shall be got executed by 30.6.1978 after obtaining necessa...
Dr. Phool Chand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1114; [2001(89)FLR687]; (2001)2UPLBEC1079
D. R. Chaudhary, J.1. Dr. Phool Chand Yadav, the petitioner herein, while working on the post of District Social Welfare Officer, Sidharthnagar was served with an order dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure-8) issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, retiring him prematurely with immediately effect and three months' salary was directed to be paid in lieu of the notice. The legality and validity of the order dated 28.9.2000 has been questioned by means of this writ petition.2. The facts, as borne out of the pleadings, are that the petitioner, while posted in the district Ghazipur as District Social Welfare Officer, he went on medical leave from 25.9.1997. During leave period, hiswife developed lever cancer which resulted in her death. When he went to join his duties, he was not allowed as one Ratan Kumar had been posted in his place by the Director, Social Welfare. U. P. Lucknow. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation, which annoye...
Anil Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1133; [2001(89)FLR749]; (2001)2UPLBEC1325
S. R. Singh, J.1. Impugned herein is the order dated 7.2.2001 (Annexure-3 to the petition) whereby the petitioner-a Reader in the court of Tahsildar Sadar Moradabad, was placed under suspension with retroactive effect, i.e.. with effect from the date a criminal case, it being Case Crime No. 69 of 2001 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him. A perusal of the First Information Report registered in case Crime No. 69 of 2001 at Police Station Kotwali, Moradabad under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would evince that the petitioner was caught by the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Anti-corruptton/Crime Investigation Branch Moradabad, flagrante delicto on 2.2.2001 accepting Rs. 1,000 asIllegal gratification as a quit pro quo for getting the restoration application filed in a mutation case in the Court of Tahsildar Sadar decided in favour of the complainant Gulab Singh.2. The main thrust of the submissions advanced across the b...
Dr. Anirudh Pradhan Vs. Chancellor, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1155; (2001)2UPLBEC1070
S. R. Singh, J.1. The petitioner, a Reader in Hindu Degree College, Jamania, district Ghazipur staked his claim of being senior-most teacher in the college. His claim came to be obligated by the Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University as well as the Chancellor. Jaunpur by means of the orders impugned herein. The college is affiliated to the Purvanchal University. Jaunpur and the provisions of the U. P. StateUniversities Act. 1973 and those of the First Statutes of the Gorakhpur University are admittedly applicable to tills college.2. The case has a chequered history. The minimal facts necessary to highlight the controversy involved in the case may be stated thus. The petitioner was appointed Lecturer (Mathematics) in the college on 21.2.1977. On the recommendation dated 27.5.1992 of a duly constituted selection committee, he was appointed Reader pursuant to resolution dated 18.5.1992 of the Committee of Management. The petitioner took charge of the post of the Reader by submitting an ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »