Allahabad Court July 2001 Judgments
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2324; (2002)1UPLBEC728
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri B. K. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The writ petition is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.2.1997 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 18.6.1998 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the order passed by the Inspector General of Police dated 8.2.1999 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the year 1974. Petitioner has stated that in the year 1995, he was posted at district Pilibhit. It has been averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC759; 2002ACJ339; 2001(3)AWC2362
M. Katju and R.B. Misra, JJ.1. This F.A.F.O. has been filed against the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 17.5.2001. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another. 1998 (2) TAC 379 (SC), which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi, 2001 (2) TAC 483 (All)2. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on two decisions of Division Benches of this Court, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manisha Porwar, 1992 (2) TAC 442 (All), as well as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanhoomal Sharma and another. 2000 (4) AWC 2655. These decisions have not taken into consideration, the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarayya's case (supra). On the other hand, the Division Bench decision in Oriental Fire and General...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC740; 2001(4)AWC2638
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide his objection in respect of grant of temporary or permanent stage carriage permit on the route Sikandara Rau-Jalesar-Hathras Junction (in short the 'route').2. The petitioner is an existing operator on the route in question. His version is that 40 stage carriages are being piled on the aforesaid route on the basts of permanent permits granted to him and other operators by the authority concerned. The respondents are also going to extend the route in question, which will overlap 15 kms. route of the petitioner out of 25 kms., the total length of the route. Certain other persons have applied for grant of permit on the route in question. The petitioner is alleged to have filed objection before the Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh, respondent No. 1 against the grant of any further permit. His grievance is that if other permit is granted to other persons on the route in question, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Kumar Singh (D.) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Prescribed Authority ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC293
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following reliefs :(A) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to restitute within given time the land declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide order dated 7.10.1976 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.(B) Issue order or direction In the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to pay damages to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per bigha per annum. (C) Issue writ order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 1.3.1984 and 6.3.1987 passed by the prescribed authority contained in Annexures-5 and 8 to this writ petition.2. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon the petitioner No. 1 on 29.5.1974. In the said notice. 12 bighas, 15 biswas and 6 biswansi land of the petitioner No. 1 was proposed as surplus. The petitioner No....
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Dohrey Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC256
M. Quddusi, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 24, C.P.C. for transfer of Appeal No. 257 of 2000, Ganga Ram Dohrey v. State of U. P., preferred under Section 9 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow to any other competent court having the same jurisdiction.2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.3. The applicant has filed this application after rejection of his application for transferring the appeal, by the District Judge.4. Sections 9 (1) to (6) of the Act provide as under :'9, Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall He from every order of the prescribed authority made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or Section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other Judicial officer not below the rank of Civil Judge as the District Judge may desig...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Matanhelia and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC296
S.K. Sen, C.J. and Ashish N. Trivedi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. K. Sinha and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned standing counsel for State respondents.2. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that actual expenses for construction of the bridge has already been realtzed. It has also been alleged that the amount of interest and maintenance expenses have also been realized but the respondent authorities are charging tax on the said bridges in an arbitrary manner.3. It is also the contention that the State Government is not entitled to charge stationery charges. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. Devi Dayal Singh, 2000 (2) AWC 1288 (SC) : 2000 (3) SCC 5. The aforesaid decision relates to Galghat toll tax in respect of the Gat Ghat Bridge which was constructed by the Government of U. P. on river Sarju in the year 1968 at a cost of Rs. 39,97,000.00. In 1970 it...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Kumar Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2146
Ashok Bhusan, J.1. Heard Sri R.S. Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Tripathi appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the appointment to the petitioner in accordance to his qualification.4. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are; petitioner's father Sri Bhagwan Singh was permanent Cashier-cum-Clerk in the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Agra. The petitioner, in the writ petition , has claimed that his father was kidnapped on 10th July, 1980 and subsequently was murdered. The petitioner further in the same paragraph-2 of the writ petition says that date of murder is not know because from date he was ki...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Saran Engineering Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)4CompLJ76(All)
Ambwani, J. 1. By order dated 9-2-2000, the offer of Sri Prem Mohan Singh to purchase movable and immovable assets of the company (in liquidation) for a total amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000 was accepted, and the payment was directed to be made as suggested in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Sri Prem Mohan Singh supporting the application. It was directed that the possession be given by the liquidator to the intending purchaser as soon as five per cent of the sale consideration is deposited and the first quarterly instalment is paid to the liquidator, and the bank guarantee for the remaining amount is furnished to the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator was directed to inform the court whether the remaining instalments have been paid on due date or not. On 20-10-2000, a notice was directed to be issued to Sri Prem Mohan Singh by registered post to show cause by 10-11-2000 as to why the earnest money of Rs. 7,50,000, deposited by him be not forfeited, as he had not complied with t...
Tag this Judgment!Khulwant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1175]; (2002)IVLLJ161All
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and also perused the record. 3. By means of these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the petitioners in continuous service and to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners. 4. It appears that the petitioners were employed as daily wagers in the year 1979. They worked from time to time as and when their services were required in the Irrigation Department as it is evident from the certificate, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Ultimately, petitioners were not permitted to work therefore, they approached this Court and filed the above noted peti...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Katare Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4777
O.P. Garg, J.1. The petitioner Suresh Chandra Katre alias Sulli seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for being set at liberty on quashing the order of detention dated 10-10-2000, Annexure 2 to the petition, passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by District Magistrate Etah. Against the order of detention, which was duly served upon the petitioner, he made a representation on 19-10-2000. It was forwarded along with para-wise comments of the District Magistrate with letter dated 20-10-2000 arid was received by the State Government on the next day, i.e. 21-10-2000. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government on 17-10-2000 well within the period of 21 days to be reckoned from the first date of actual detention. The Advisory Board found that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. After taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Board and other material on record, the deten...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »