Allahabad Court May 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.
Harish Chandra Srivastava Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad Hig ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1303
Pradeep Kant, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his services rendered in the Civil Courts at Lucknow for the period 14.11.1964 to 6.8.1975 and for the period commencing 7.8.1975 to 21.2.1978 during which period he was working with M/s. Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow for the purpose of grant of post retiral benefits including pension etc., has approached this Court claiming that his continuity in service should be counted from 14.11.1964 till he reaches the age of superannuation. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has retired while working as Private Secretary in the High Court.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer in the Civil Courts at Lucknow by means of the order dated 14.11.1964 against a substantive vacancy on a permanent post. While the petitioner was working in the Civil Courts an advertisement was published by the Allahabad High Court inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Personal Assistants. The p...
Kashi Ram Ahirwar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC4036; (2001)2UPLBEC1563
S. R. Singh, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks quashing of the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby compulsorily retiring the petitioner with immediate effect from service by giving him pay in lieu of three months notice.2. I have heard Dr. R. Dwivedi. Senior Advocate representing the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for State.3. The petitioner was appointed Junior Clerk in the Consolidation Department in the year 1977. By order dated 31.3.1997 he was promoted to the post of senior clerk. A screening committee was constituted by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Jhansi, pursuant to the order dated 21.7.1998 of the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, to evaluate efficiencies of the employees with a view to screen out the dead wood by compulsarily retiring such employees in public interest. The Screening Committe prepared a precis of the A.C.Rs. In respect of various employees inluding the petitioner and recommended...
Jagannath Sahai Verma and Another Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Office ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1671
O. P. Garg, J.1. The thumbnail sketch of the case is that the petitioner No. 1, Jagannath Sahal Varma is the owner-landlord of premises No. 1450/989 Mutthiganj. Allahabad. Upper portion of the said house was originally under the tenancy of one Gautam Deo Singh at the monthly rent of Rs. 100. An application for release--P.A. Case No. 52 of 1986 Under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the landlord. The said release petition was allowed on the basis of a compromise by the Prescribed Authority on 2.8.1986 pursuant to which, the landlord tookvacant possession of the released upper portion of the house. Admittedly, Dilip Kumar Srivastava, who happens to be the real brother of the wife of the landlord lkykoccupied the released accommodation along with his family comprised of his wife and a child during the period 2.6.89 to 19.6.96, i.e., for a period mo...
Nand Lal Singh Yadav Vs. Smt. Vimla Devi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1952
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4.2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 26.5.2000 by which the application under Order IX, Rule 13. C.P.C. was allowed by the Claims Tribunal subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 50,000. Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Claims Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000 during the pendency of the claim petition although at the time of accident the maximum amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 was only Rs. 25,000. He further submits that as the vehicle was insured, theliability is of the Insurance Company. He has also relied upon the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1503 (MSI of 1992.3. Sri Harish Chandra, learnedcounsel for the opposite parties submits that the Claims Tribunal passed...
Bala Prasad Agnihotri Vs. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1026]; 2001LabIC3524; (2001)3UPLBEC2059
M. Katju and R.B. Misra, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure-9 to the petition) as well as the order of termination of his service dated 10.2.1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) and the orders dated 8.3.1988 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition) by which certain sums were ordered tobe recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.3. The petitioner was an Assistant Agriculture Inspector having been appointed In the year 1958. He was placed under suspension on 30.3.1974 and an F.I.R. under Section 409 as well as 477A. I.P.C., was also filed against him. He was convicted in the criminal case by the learned C.J.M. and in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service with further direction to refund the amount of loss caused to the Government. True copy of the Judgment in the criminal case has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. True copy of the termination order dated 10.2.82 Is ...
Gorakh Prasad Rai Vs. 6th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1550
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The premises in dispute are three rooms, latrine, bath room on the ground floor of house No. 13/57 Parmit, Kanpur Nagar. Admittedly the respondent No. 3 is the landlady of the said house and she moved an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging she is in bona fide need of the house. The application was allowed by theprescribed authority by judgmentdated 26.5.1999. Annexure-2 to thewrit petition. Aggrieved by it, thepetitioner filed a rent appeal No. 114of 1999 under Section 22 of U.P. ActNo. 13 of 1972. The rent appeal hasalso been dismissed by order dated5.3.2001. Annexure-1 to the writpetition. The petitioner has thereforeinvoked the extra-ordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned standing couns...
Bheeshm Pal and Another Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1556
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The suit for eviction of the petitioners and recovery of rent was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being Suit No. 35/93. It was alleged in the plaint that U.P. Act XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute is a shop No. 3 of House No. 142. South Bhopa Road Gaushala, Nat Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 20.5.1998, by judgment.Annexure-7 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioners preferred S.C.C. No. 62/98, which have also been dismissed on 27.10.1998, vide Annexure-8 to the petition. Aggrieved by it, the petitioners have filed this petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.3. The only argument advanced in this petition is that the shop in dispute was constructed prior to 1979 and it was assessed...
Gulbir Singh Vs. Vith Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1566b
B. K. Rathi, J.1. S.C.C. Suit No. 62 of 1994 for ejectmenl from the shop in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent was filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner. Notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post, which was served by refusal. The service was held to be sufficient and the suit was decreed ex parte on 17.8.1996 vide Annexure-2 to the petition.2. The petitioner moved an application under Order IX. Rule 13, C.P.C., Annexure-3 to the petition, for setting aside ex parte decree. He alleged that no notice was ever tendered to him nor he refused to accept the same. He came to know regarding the decree when the notice regarding the execution of the decreewas received. The compliance of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts was also made by him. The application was opposed.3. The application for restoration was rejected by the Judge. Small Causes Court, Muzaffarnagar on 2.1.1998, Annexure-10 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Rev...
Smt. Rama Devi Gupta Vs. 12th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1620
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The premises in dispute is a portion of House No. 128/2 Block 'C'. Kidwai Nagar. Kanpur Nagar. It was declared vacant on 3.9.1998, vide order Annexure-12 passed by the Rent Control Officer, Kanpur. It was allotted to the petitioner on 11.9.1998.2. The opposite party No. 2 is the landlord of the premises, who challenged the order of the allotment, dated 11.9.1998 in a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act, XI11 of 1972 being revision No. 22/99. The said revision has been allowed by the order, dated 4.4.2001 by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.3. I have heard Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party and have perused the record.4. It is contended that before declaring vacancy a notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2, which is Annexure-5 to the petition. This notice was served on the wife of the opposite...
Anatha Ram Vs. Addl. Civil Judge and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2023
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.1985 whereby respondent No. 1 rejected the application of the petitioner for putting his signatures on the plaint and vakalatnama.2. The petitioner filed Suit No. 32 of 1977 for ejectment of defendant No. 1 and for demolition of construction raised by him. The suit was contested by three defendants by filing three separate written-statements. The parties led evidence in the case and the suit wasdismissed on merits. The trial court further held that the plaint was not signed by the plaintiff but it was signed by his son Lakshmi Narain and as such, the plaint was not properly presented. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application that he may be permitted to put his signatures on the plaint and vakalatnama. This application has been rejected by the Court by the impugned order dated 21.11.1985.3. The pleading is to be si...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »