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.
Rajni JaIn (Smt.) Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR102]; (2001)IILLJ1411All; (2001)2UPLBEC1607
Yatindra Singh, J. INTRODUCTION 1. The only question involved in this writ petition is if the petitioner could withdraw her option for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (the Scheme) floated by the Punjab and Sind Bank (the Bank).THE FACTS 2. The petitioner was a clerk-cum-cashier in the Jhansi branch of the bank. The Bank floated a scheme for voluntary retirement and this scheme was open for one month, namely between December 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Petitioner, who was keen to take the benefit of the scheme, filed her option for voluntary retirement under the scheme on November 28, 2000 even before the time to give the option started. But equally soon she changed her mind. She gave an application on December 29, 2000 before the period for giving option was to end-to withdraw her option for voluntary retirement. The Bank did not act on her withdrawal application but accepted her option for voluntary retirement on January 29, 2001. She was also relieved fr...
Vijay Narayan Ojha Vs. Banaras State Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ710All
S.R. Singh, J.1. In the instant petitions, which are knit together with common question of law and fact, Sri Navin Sinha, appearing for the respondents prefaced his submissions with a preliminary objection and commiserated with the Court for decision thereon before embarking upon merits of the case. The preliminary objection raised by Sri Navin Sinha is that Banaras State Bank Limited, the respondent-employer herein is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. We have accordingly heard the counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.2. It brooks no dispute that Banaras State Bank Limited is a Banking Company incorporated as such under the provisions of the Banaras State Companies Act and is deemed to be a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It does not have the complexion of a Nationalised Bank. Rat...
State of U.P. Vs. Satendra Singh Tomer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2509; (2001)2UPLBEC1015
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This is one of the cases in contempt proceedings where a Judicial Officer is alleged to have been assaulted, humiliated and put to mental torture in the performance of his judicial function.2. The factual matrix of the case is that Sri N.K. Jain, the complainant, (hereinafter referred to as the officer) was functioning as Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur at the relevant time. He had decided a case under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation Act registered as P.A. Case No. 33 of 1993, Nisar v. Anwar. Irfan is alleged to have filed an application for setting aside the said order. This application was rejected on 16.4.1993. It is further alleged that on 17th April, 1993 Sri Satendra Singh Tomar, the contemner, appeared before the officer with an application that the process for ejectment of the applicant in P.A. Case No. 33 of 1993 be recalled from the executing authority concerned. To put in the words of the complaint-officer on Saturdays regular work...
Bina Tripathi (Smt.) Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2585
R.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri R. K. Tripathi, who represents the respondent No. 3.2. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that she has passed her Higher Secondary School Examination from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and has not done her Intermediate from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. It is not indispute that the Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is duly recognised by the State Government. The candidature has been rejected on wholly irrelevant consideration. She has been placed at serial No. 1 in the select list. No other deficiency or disqualification having been pointed out. There is no justification for not selecting the petitioner for training for the post of Shiksha Mitra.3. In t...
Dinesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2847
U.S. Tripathi, J.1. This is second bail application. The first bail application was disposed of on 19-2-2001 with a direction to move fresh bail applicant before learned Sessions Judge on the ground of proviso to Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.2. The applicant involved in case crime No. 820 of 2000 under Sections 364/302/34, I P C, P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad, moved bail application before Chief Judicial Magistrate concerneed, who rejected the same and thereafter he moved bail application before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, rejected his bail application on 3-11-2000 on merit.3. Thereafter, the applicant moved another bail application before Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 12-12-2000 on the ground that charge sheet in the case was not submitted within 90 days from the date of first remand to judicial custody. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the above application, vide his order dated 14-12-2000 on the ground that first remand by the Court was grante...
Trishma Singh Vs. U.P. Intermediate Education Board, Allahabad and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1152; (2001)3UPLBEC2071
1. I.M. Quddusi, J.--By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-evaluate the answer-sheets of the petitioner.2. In this petition, this Court passed following orders on 15.12.2000:'In pursuance of this Court's order dated 24.11.2000, the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate has sent the examiners who have re-evaluated the answer books of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel apprised this Court that on re-evaluation, the petitioner has got more marks in the subjects in which re-evaluation has been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the result of re-evaluation of the answer books of the other subjects apprehends that the same position may be with the other subjects. He prays for re-evaluation of the marks in other subjects also. Today, re-evaluation of the marks of the subjects of English, Sanskrit, Maths and Social Science has been made. On the basis of the result of re...
Prakash Singh Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC114; 2002ACJ256; AIR2001All243
ORDER1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to command the respondents not to withhold Rs. 89745/- deposited by the Insurance Company in terms of the compromise and to disburse the same to him forthwith with interest on the ground that even though there was no compromise between the parties before the Tribunal that the aforementioned amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit account in any Nationalised Bank, yet the learned Special Judge, Mirzapur has committed an apparent error of law in directing deposit of the said amount in a fixed deposit account for five years in any Nationalised Bank.2. Sri S.K. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the respondent No. 1 be commanded to direct return of the aforementioned amount along with interest to the petitioner.3. Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that since the petitioner has not brought on record the compromise, which he had entered with ...
Yogendra Pal Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2155
A.K. Yog, J.1. Yogendra Pal Singh, Munish Kumar, Ajay Kumar Vishwas.Petitioners have approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 Constitution of India praying :(i) to issue a writ to quash order dated January 12, 1998 passed by Accounts Officer, Office of District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur/ Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition); whereby said authority refused to release salary of the Petitioners on the ground that promotion of the Petitioners in C.T. Grade was not in accordance with law inasmuch as they did not fulfil prescribed eligibility condition since they were regularised with effect from January 6,1993 (and the Petitioners had not completed five years of continuous substantive service in C.T Grade on the relevant date i.e. occurrence of vacancy);(ii) to issue a suitable writ commanding the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to function as Assistant Teacher in S.A.M. Inter College, Saharanpur and to pay their regular monthly salary, and(ii...
Rama Kant and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2072
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned F.I.R. dated 2-2-2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), in case crime No. 32 of 2001, under Section 394 IPC, Police Station G.R.P., Banda. The aforesaid F.I.R. reads as follows :-2. The aforesaid First Information Report shows that the allegation is that two G.R.P. personnel beat up and robbed a sum of Rs. 50/- from the complainant and they also robbed other persons. It is a strange state of affairs in our country that some police personnel who are supposed to be the protectors of the people have themselves become like bandits and thieves. A large number of cases are coming before us where the complaints against the police personnel are that they are robbing persons or extracting money from them forcibly. What kind of society is this where a Rakshak has become a Bhakshak? This is not an isolated case but these complaints are coming regularly in various cases which are being filed before us.3. The duty of the police personn...
Shanker Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2070
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned F.I.R. dated 4-1-2001 in case crime No. 4 of 2001 under Section 147/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act police station Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar, copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition.2. The aforesaid F.I.R. reads as follows :3. A perusal of the above F.I.R. shows that the allegations therein are that certain persons belonging to the Yadav and Brahmin community came to the house of the respondent No. 3 Shobha Devi who is a Harijan by caste at about 6 p.m. on 20-12-2000. It appears that there was previous enmity between the parties because of Panchayat election in which first informant Smt. Shobha Devi had defeated the candidate set up by the previous Pradhan Ashish Yadav. In this connection the accused Rajesh, Dinesh Pandey had previously beaten up Shobha Devi's son Chandra Mani regarding which a criminal case had also been registered. On 20-12-2000 at about 6 p.m. the accus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›