Allahabad Court July 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.
Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC3953; (2001)3UPLBEC2113
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 18.7.1998 passed by the Director General of Police rejecting the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner out of turn promotion Jn pursuance of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 and the Circular letter dated 10.2.1994 Issued by the Director General of Police, U. P., Lucknow.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are ; that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in civil police in the year 1982. Petitioner-states that while he was posted as Station Officer. Police Station, Lalganj, district Basti, he gunned down three notorious criminals on 23/24.5.1995 in an encounter. Petitioner further stated that during the...
Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Regional Director, Employees State Insuran ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR556]; (2001)IILLJ1059All; (2001)3UPLBEC2124
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard Shri S.K. Gupta learned counsel for appellant and Shri P. K. Pandey for respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 passed under Section 75(2B) of the Employees State Insurance Act. It appears that a notice under Section 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act was Issued to the appellant and thereafter he raised a dispute under Section 75 alleging, inter alia, that its unit was not covered by the Act and the impugned recovery was Illegal. The appellant also applied under Section 75(2B) for waiver of the deposit of 50% of the amount in question, but that application has been rejected by the impugned order, hence this appeal.3. We have carefully perused the Impugned order dated 23.4.2001 and find that no proper reasons have been given In the same for refusing the prayer for waiver of the deposit of 50%. All that has been stated in the Impugned order Is that the appellant has not been given sufficient ground for getting the waiver...
Sheo Prakash Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(All)177; [2001(90)FLR837]; [2001]248ITR619(All); (2001)3UPLBEC2222
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.4.1995 passed by the Superin-tendent of Police, Maharajganj dismissing the petitioner, a constable (armed force), Vigular. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged in the writ petition and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.2. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are, that the petitioner was appointed and posted as constable (armed force) in 36th P.A.C. Battalion at Ram Nagar, Varanasi, on 1.11.1986. After completing three years' of service, option was asked from the armed police constables by U. P. Police Head Quarter for appointment on the post of Vigular which is special wing of U. P. Police Organisation. The petitioner has given his option for appointment as Vigular and after being examined medically, he was appointed as Vigular. The post of Vigular is a post of special allowance and other p...
Anand Kumar Tiwari Vs. Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2002LabIC552; (2001)3UPLBEC2242
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Anand Kumar Tiwari praying for quashing the order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 17.12.1996. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service as Constable in the U. P. Police. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :2. Petitioner was recruited as a Constable in 1974 and was lastly posted at Jaunpur. Petitioner's elderbrother died at his village on 11.9.1984. The death of elder brother of petitioner had a serious effect on his mind. Petitioner claimed in the writ petition that he prayed for leave and when the authorities did not grant him leave, he submitted his resignation on 27.10.1984. Petitioner thereafter on 2.11.1984 submitted an application for grant of leave for period of one month. The said application has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the leave application, petitioner stated that the accepta...
Sameer Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2414; (2001)3UPLBEC2625
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. Often grant of interim order at the initial stage, when the writ petition is filed not only results into miscarriage of justice, but also results into multiplicity of the proceedings. Besides the above, it creates problems also for the executive authorities to implement the orders particularly, when they are hauled up in contempt proceedings. If, on one post, the Court directs the payment of salary to two persons, in two different writ petitions, the order cannot be implemented, hence it would be necessary that instead of passing orders, on writ petitions, where each of petitioner has conflicting interest, the controversy should be finally set at rest.2. With this prelude, we advert to point out the facts of each case, of respective parties, in all the writ petitions, which have been clubbed together, and are being decided by a common judgment, as the question of facts and law raised in all the writ petitions, can be decided by a common judgment.3. Writ Petition beari...
Rakesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1215
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. In the peculiar set of facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties' counsel this revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. The applicant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 506, I.P.C. and by the judgment and order dated 8-12-99 the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the applicant to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 506, I.P.C. Against the said order applicant filed appeal which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 22-6-2001 maintaining the conviction of applicant under Section 506, I.P.C. but reducing the sentence to six months R.I. but simultaneously enhancing fine to Rs. 1,500/-2. So far as conviction of applicant under Section 506, I.P.C. is concerned both the Courts below have recorded finding of guilt on evaluation of evidence brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to the notice of this Court any defect in the said finding of...
ishwar Saran Shukla and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3903
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Sri K. S. Jetley for the applicants in revision and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.2. By means of this revision, applicants have challenged the order dated 28.11.2000 of A.C.J.M. II, Saharanpur rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the applicants and thereby refusing to discharge the applicants. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate has framed charge under Section 3 of the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act (in short R.P.U.P. Act) by the order dated 15.12.2000.3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that since in the present case, property which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants was not produced before the court below, there was no possibility of the case resulting into conviction and in support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court, Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, 2001 (1) RCR (Cr) 109. I have gone through the s...
U.P. Financial Corporation Vs. District Judge, Bareilly and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2052
Binod Kumar Roy and R.P.Misra, JJ.1. In O.S. No. 177 of 1999.M/s. Mahavir Cement v. U.P.P.C., the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly, on 10.9.1999 passed an order to put up the petition-50 Ga (filed for hearing the petition-6 Ga) for its hearing on the date fixed Inviting objection to be filed in the meantime. Respondent No. 3 filed Civil Revision Ho. 155 of 1999 against the order aforesaid which was disposed of by the order impugned by the incharge District Judge, Bareilly, as contained in Annexure-5 behind the back of the writ petitioner directing the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly, to decide positively the application 6C on the date fixed before passing any order In the suit and further directing the writ petitioner not to take possession over the factory till disposal of the said application. The petitioner assails validity of this order before us invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. Three fold contentions have been made by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, l...
Usman Gani Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2149
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. By way of filing the Instant writ petition, the petitioner ts seeking relief In the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the entire consolidation proceedings by denotifying village Lai, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, district Allahabad under Section 6 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act oi 1953), as they have done in respect of village Kudha, vide Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N. D. Keshari at length and perusedthe provisions envisaged under Section 6 of the Act of 1953.2. From the perusal of the aforesaid section, I am of the opinion that the State Government, under Section 6 of the Act of 1953, is empowered with exclusive jurisdiction to cancel the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 in respect of the whole or part of the area specified therein. It is further to be noticed that where Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 is...
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC4091
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Dr. R. G.Padia. the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and SriB. N. Agarwal, the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. Relying upon Section 31C of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, thereinafter called the 'Principal Act'), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act. 1992, (hereinafter called the 1992 Amendment Act), and the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1997, (hereinafter called the 1997 Amendment Act), the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the statutory selection committee, constituted under Section 31C (2) of the 1997 Amendment Act, Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad through its Director, to consider his case for regularisation on the post of lecturer in Economics in Sri Murli Manohar Town...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »