Allahabad Court April 2001 Judgments
Birbal Sharma Vs. Chief Medical Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1745
V.M. Sahai, J.1. Heard Shri Mohit Kumar holding brief of Shri Ajit Kumar for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 11.10.1991 passed by respondent No. 1 by which his service has been terminated on the ground that he was a temporary employee and his services are no longer required.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in paragraph 4 it has clearly been stated that petitioner's services have been terminated after completing the departmental enquiry. The relevant part of paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit is extracted below:'That the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition are denied as stated. It is submitted that the termination order passed after completing the departmental enquiry. It is also submitted that the First Information Report under Section 420/486/471, IPC was also lodged against the petitioner after due departmental enquiry and then the termination order was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bahadur Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3353
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The applicant has made a request for bail for offence under Section 302, IPC Crime No. 28 of 2000, Police Station Aonla, District Baijeilly. The first bail application was rejected on 30-10-2000. This is second application for bail.2. The first ground argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial has not concluded and the applicant is in jail since last about 16 months. The detention of 16 months cannot be a ground for bail, for an offence of murder. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail on this ground.3. The next ground taken is that the copy of the inquest report has been filed which is Annexure S.A. 1 which shows that the name of the accused has not been mentioned in it; it has been argued that, therefore, it should be presumed that the FIR was not in existence when the inquest report was prepared and that the applicant is, therefore, entitled for bail. It is contended that Mr. Justice P. K. Jain has granted bail in the case of Um...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1112]; 2001LabIC3518; (2002)ILLJ410All; (2001)2UPLBEC1271
M. Katju and O. Bhatt, JJ.1. Thiswrit petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.5.1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which petitioner was deemed to have abandoned his job and his name has been struck off from the rolls of the respondent corporation.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the counter and rejoinder-affidavits, it is alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition that the petitioner joined the service of Indian Oil Corporation as Accounts Officer on Probation after having qualified in written and interview test held on 15.1.1990. The petitioner was thereafter confirmed on the post of Accounts Officer in July. 1990. He was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer in 1994.3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner proceeded on earned leave to Bombay from 11.9.1995 to 22.9.1995 with prior permission of the concerned authority. However, the petitioner for unavoidable reasons could not join his duty and applied f...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Maliyana, Meerut Vs. Commissioner, Meerut an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1681
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sale proclamation dated 28.3.1992. order dated 30.5.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Meerut confirming the sale of the properties owned by the petitioner and the order dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the rules framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and 'the Act'.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that it was on an application made by Shri Narendra Singh Tyagi, Secretary, Chini Mill Majdoor Hitkari Samiti, Meerut, Z.A. Form No. 74 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75.99.445 towards the salary, wages and gratuity of the workmen working in the said factory ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Gupta and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3363
Palok Basu, J.1. The arguments advanced by parties learned counsel on the import of the provisions contained in Section 156(3) read with other relevant provisions certainly touched great heights but luckily the timely ushering of a decision of the Apex Court has perforce reduced the controversies raised to a manageable extent.2. It so happened that a Division Bench (of two of us, P. Basu and Hon.'ble J. C. Gupta, J.) came across in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of Ram Babu Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta an order dated 5-6-2000 (Annexure-6) passed in exercise of powers under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. by the Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Mainpuri directing Station Officer to register a case and investigate. The prayer was that the said order be quashed and respondents-Police Station Alau, Mainpuri and the informant Ved Prakash Dubey be restrained from arresting the petitioners in case Crime No. 900 of 2000, under Section 395 registered there in pursuance...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ616
ORDERVirendra Saran, J.1. By means of this revision Nirmal Kumar Dwivedi has challenged the order dated 14-2-2000 of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), Lucknow refusing to release his three wheeler vehicle of Vikram make registered as UP 32 T 4675. The vehicle was seized and challaned by Madiaon police as it was not fitted with a scrubber and ever since the vehicle is rotting under the open sky without use. The sole ground for rejecting the applicant's application was that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has passed an order dated 30-3-2000 in Writ Petition No. 2102 (MB) of 1997 in which it has been directed that only the High Court may release such vehicles. This is not the only case of its kind. These days the Bench here at Lucknow is flooded with cases for the release of such vehicles. Lucknow Magistrates at large appear to be of the same view. In a large number of cases various Hon'ble Judges of this Court has released the vehicles.2. I have heard learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera Tiwari Vs. Chief Medical Officer and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1110]; 2001LabIC4040; (2001)3UPLBEC2057
S. K. Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned advocate for the appellant and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by the learned single Judge 'dismissing the writ petition.The challenge in the writ petition was against the order of suspension. The contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge did not properly appreciate the question that suspension is not permissible unless enquiry is contemplated or enquiry is pending. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to us sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 1999 which is set out herein below :'4. Suspension. --(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be place under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority : Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. Alok Tandon, District Magistrate, Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3362; [2001(89)FLR933]; (2001)2UPLBEC1280
S. Harkauli, J.1. Heard learnedcounsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, representing the opposite party. The petitioner is a Lekhpal. He was posted at Bhognipur in Kanpur Dehat. By order dated 24.8. 1996 passed by the Board of Revenue he was transferred from Bhognipur to Allahabad and he Joined at Allahabad on 1.1.1997. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2110 of 1998 alleging that although he has Joined on 1.1.1997 at Allahabad pursuant to his transfer, but he had not been paid his salary for the period from 1.1.1997 onward. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment dated 20.1.1998 at the stage of fresh itself without granting any time to file counter-affidavit. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :'The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the District Magistrate. Allahabad, shall himself look into the matter and pass appropriate order for the release of the salary of the petitioner from th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leelawanti Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ Addl. City Magi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All235
O.P. Garg, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Lilawanti has challenged the order dated 26.2.2001, Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby a deemed vacancy has been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/VIth Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in respect of house No. I1I-A/214 Ashok Nagar, P.S. Nazirabad, Kanpur Nagar.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, Heard Sri W. H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.3. It is an Indubitable fact that late Radha Kishan Chhabara was the original tenant in the premises aforesaid. He died on 16.10.1990 leaving behind him the present petitioner (widow) and three sons, namely. Ashok Kumar Chhabara, Prem Chhabara and Rakesh Chandra Chhabara. Whereabouts of Rakesh Chandra Chhabara are not known as he is missing for a considerable long time. The respondent No. 3Dharm...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Allahabad and Another Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1794; (2001)2UPLBEC1602
D.S. Sinha and Anjani Kumar,JJ. 1. Government Order dated July 12, 1990, purporting to withdraw the total exemption from payment of stamp duty In respect of instruments to which housing co-operative societies are party, granted under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, vide Notification dated July 18, 1979, is under challenge in this petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of discrimination and thereby violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Sri Sandeep Mookerji, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents, submits, and rightly so, that controversy raised in instant writ petition is no longer res-integra inasmuch as it is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Swatantra Bihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U. P. and Others, AIR 1992 All 196.3. Sri Arvind Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, has not been able to dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »