Allahabad Court June 2001 Judgments
Har NaraIn Tiwari and Another Vs. District Judge, Mathura and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2063
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority exercising the powers under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In earlier Writ Petition No. 7740 of 1983, the petitioners have also challenged the orders of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority. The writ petition was allowed in part and the order of the prescribed authority dated 31.12.1980 and the order of the appellate authority dated 4.3.1983 were set aside, in so far as they pertained to the bona fide of sale deeds dated 25th August. 1971 and 16th of November, 1971 executed by Chob Singh deceased. The matter was remanded by this Court to the appellate authority with the direction to decide it afresh on merits according to law the question of validity and effect of the two sale deeds dated 25th August. 1971 and 16th November, 1971. In view of the provisions of Section 5 (6) of...
Tag this Judgment!Zonal Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Gorakhpur and Others Vs. Presidi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR931]; 2001LabIC4093; (2001)3UPLBEC2250
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-Zonal Chief Engineer. U. P., Jal Nigam, Gorakhpur challenged the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 256 of 1984. Respondent No. 2 Jayant Kumar Mishra referred to as workman, filed his written statement pursuant to the reference by the State Government as to whether the employers in terminating the services of respondent No. 2 workman with effect from 1st of May, 1982 is legal and justified, if not to what relief the workman is entitled.2. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 filed their writtenstatements before the Labour Court. The case set up by respondent workman was that he was appointed on the post of Operator with effect from 11th of July, 1979 by Executive Engineer, U. P. Jal Nigam. Gorakhpur and was posted at Pumping Station Jal Nigam, Elahibagh, Gorakhpur and since then he was in continuous service and at the time of termination of his service, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Pervez Alam Alias Imran Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2527
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These four connected writ petitions have been filed by four petitioners arising out of common order passed by the revlsional court on 18th May, 2001 (Annexure-22 to the petition). The revisional court has consolidated revision of four S.C.C. suits which have been decreed by Judge Small Causes Court by judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2001. The petitioners, who are the tenants, are aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree. 2. The facts leading to the filing of petition are that the contesting respondent purchased four accommodations in dispute by its owner by registered sale deed, thereafter he served notice informing them that he is the landlord. The service of notice is not disputed. The notice has been served by the landlord wherein it has been stated that these tenants are in arrears of rent and if they do not pay rent after receipt of notice, they would be liable to be evicted. It appears that petitioners-tenant have disputed the liability of payme...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ618
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the arrest of the applicant some cash was recovered from his possession which was not subjected to identification, as required by Section 9 of the Evidence Act. The informant was summoned and he was made to say that these are those very notes, although none of them bear any specific mark of identification. No such mark is adverted to in the FIR on these notes. The applicant was also not subjected to any physical identification, as adverted to above about the property. The investigative process in the State appears to have gone completely away. No law is meant for the police to adhere to. It prefers more its flouting than adherence to and the senior police officials appear to have turned a blind eye to the situation. Apparently the junior police officials, from these situations and facts, appear to have been colluding with the criminals...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›