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.
Sitaram Pahariya Vs. District Judge, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1788
B. K. Rathi, J.1. The dispute isregarding shop No. 92 Sarrafa Bazar, Jhansi. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1] (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the said shop against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, being release application No. 116 of 1992. The application was allowed by the prescribed authority on 4.8.1994 by Judgment, Annexure-9 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order of release, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Appeal No. 26 of 1994 under Section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by respondent No. 1 on 16.11.1995 and application for release has been rejected by Judgment, Annexure-10 to the petition. The landlord, therefore, has filed this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that order, Annexure-10 to the petition be quashed and order, Annexure-9 to the petition of the prescribed authority be restored.2. I have heard Sri M. S. Plpersanla and Sri Sanjay ...
Ram Nath Gupta Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. District Judge, Agra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1795
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The premises in dispute is portion of property No. 6/246, Barah Pura, Belanganj, Agra, consisting of two halls one kitchen, one kothri, gaukh, latrine, kitchen bath on the first floor and a small kothri on the second floor. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are thelandlords of the same and they moved an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), Annexure-1 to the petition. The application for release was allowed by the prescribed authority by order, Annexure-4 to the petition on 18.2.1994. Against that order, the petitioner preferred appeal No. 110 of 1994 under Section 22 of the Act. The said appeal has also been dismissed by judgment, Annexure-12 to the petition on July 5. 1997. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner tenant preferred this petition invoking extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that both the orders be quashed.2. I have heard Sri Prak...
Municipal Board, Amroha and Another Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR385]; 2001LabIC3505; (2001)IILLJ1221All; (2001)2UPLBEC1651
D.S. Sinha and Lakshml Bihari,JJ.1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Asthana, the learned senior advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2, and Sri Sandeep Mookerji, the learned standing counsel of the State of U.P. appearing for the respondent No. 1.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.9.1992 passed by respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.3. The facts, emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment, are that respondent No. 2 was a confirmed meter reader in Water Works Department of Nagar Palika. Amroha. On 13.5.1974, the Executive Officer submitted a report that the work of respondent No. 2 was not satisfactory. On the said report, the respondent No. 2 was suspended on 14.5.1974 and the Water Works Engineer was appointed as the I...
District Judge, Bulandshahr and Another Vs. Bhudev Sharma Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC3909; (2001)2UPLBEC1780
Binod Kumar Roy and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. The appellants assail validity of the judgment and order dated 25th September. 1997 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5649 of 1994 filed by the respondent directing appellant No. 1 to offer an appointment to him against class III post which may be existing on the day of the Judgment or if no vacancyis in existence, then to appoint him against the very next vacancy which may occur in his judgeship in near future. The Impugned judgment being short is being reproduced :'Heard Sri Y. S. Bohra. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned standing counsel. A recruitment test was held inthe year 1992 for selectingcandidates for the post of classIII employees in BulandshahrJudgeship. The petitioner was alsoone of the applicants.Unfortunately, the petitionerbecame blind though he wasearlier a practicing lawyer. Thecase of the petitioner was nottaken into consideration. Learnedcounsel for the pe...
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Param Hansh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR9]; 2002LabIC158; (2001)2UPLBEC1685
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The controversy Involved in all these special appeals is Identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. Special Appeal No. 91 of 2000. State of U. P. and others v. Param Hansh Singh, shall be treated as leading case.2. An advertisement was issued on 8.4.1997 inviting applications for the post of Excise Constables in the Excise Department of State of U. P. The applications were to be submitted before the respective Divisional Deputy Excise Commissioners. In pursuance of the advertisement, the respondents in the appeal (writ petitioners) applied for the post. A selection was held at the level of Deputy Excise Commissioners on 28.8.1997 in which the physical measurement of the candidates, namely, height and chest (expanded and unexpanded) was also taken. The writ petitioners having been selected were issued appointment letters on 30.8.1997. It appears that the State Government received complaints that the persons who did not meet the prescribed q...
Dharam Pal Vs. District Judge, Hamirpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR859]; 2002LabIC147; (2001)3UPLBEC2014
D.R. Chaudhary, J. 1. Thepetitioner who was on approved list of selected candidates was appointed as Class IV employee In judgeship, Hamirpur district, Hamirpur by means of appointment letter dated 9.7.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). One of the terms of the appointment was that the appointment being temporary would be liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 17.5.1997 which reads as under:'He is on probation. He is not sincere, terminated with immediate effect.' Sd/. (M, S. Premi)17.5.1997District Judge, Hamirpur. 2. The order aforestated Is under challenge in the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the order, ex-facie, is based on misconduct and being stigmatic andthus punitive in nature cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as no enquiry was held nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of hearing.3. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, o...
Mohammad Ishaque Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1750
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.2.1999 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of regular Collection Peon in accordance with U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time has been rejected on the ground that he is more than 45 years of age. The petitioner's has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give the regular selection to the petitioner with consequential benefits.3. Petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition are that he was appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon on 7.3.1969, he thereafter submitted several representation claiming that he should be confirmed a regular Collection Peon. The petitioner referred appointments of several junior persons on regular basis in his writ petition. Petitioner further states that he has made several representation for the purposes but ...
Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4385
O.P. Garg, J1. This writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with unusual prayers that the proceedings in complaint cases Nos. 627 of 2000, 42 of 2001, 36 of 2001 and some others Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') instituted by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of which the petitioner has received summons for appearance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Salem, State of Tamil Nadu be stayed; the concerned Magistrate be prohibited from taking cognizance of the said complaint cases; the said cases may be required to be transferred to the concerned Criminal Court at Varanasi and appropriate investigating agency at Varanasi be directed to register the First Information Report of the petitioner on the basis of his various applications, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures VI, VII, IX and XV to the writ petition.2. The woodcut profile of the case as is disclosed from the vario...
ShahbuddIn and Others Vs. Ivth Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1798
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The petitioners and respondent No. 4 are tenants of a shop situated in Jogipara town Debai, district Bulandshahr. The respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the same. He filed S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 1984 against the petitioners and respondent No. 4 for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The eviction was sought on two grounds ;firstly, that the petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent and secondly, that the petitioners have made material alterations in the shop in dispute.2. The petitioners contested the suit and denied both the allegations. Their case is that the alterations made are not material alterations ; that they are temporary constructions ; that they were raised with the permission of the landlord and that there is also no default in payment of rent.3. The J.S.C.C.. Bulandshahr has held that there is no default in payment of rent. However, it is held that the material alteration has been made in the shop in suit without the permission of the landl...
Dr. Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR482]; 2001LabIC3508; (2001)3UPLBEC2216
O.P. Garg and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.1. Heard Dr. Balbir Singh-petitioner who appeared, in person.2. It is sad and bad that despite sufficient opportunities, no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit. which remains uncontroverted as no supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed. Even no one is present to oppose this petition on behalf of the respondents, including. State of U.P.3. The petitioner, a doctor belonging to Provincial Health Service of the State, was posted at Agra in 1985. According to the petitioner, Dr. M.K. Ansari, who was the then Chief Medical Officer. Agra wanted to post his own man in place of the petitioner and therefore, at his behest, the petitioner was transferred from Agra to Mainpuri. On the representation of the petitioner, his transfer order from Agra to Mainpuri was cancelled. However, Dr. M.K. Ansari. Chief Medical Officer relieved the petitioner from Pinahat. Agra and also withdrew the financial...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »