Allahabad Court August 2001 Judgments
Vijendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2738; [2001(91)FLR409]; (2001)3UPLBEC2659
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of removal dated 11.7.1997, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take the petitioner in service without any interruption or break and further to pay all the benefits as admissible under Rules. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged and we have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a direct recruit to Higher Judicial Service and he joined the service on 7.12.1986. From June. 1991 till May 31, 1994, the petitioner was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Budaun. At Budaun he performed the duties of Incharge District Judge from September, 1992 till June 1, 1993. The District Magistrate and the Superint...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Lochan Vs. Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2971
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 9, 2001 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh, restraining him from carrying on medical practice in his clinic.2. The version of the petitioner is that he obtained degree of Ayurved Ratna in the year 1992 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. He applied for registration as a Medical Practitioner before the State Ayurved and Unani Medical Board, Bihar (in short the Medical Board Bihar) and was registered by the said Board in the year 1993. He, after obtaining registration from Bihar, started medical practice in district Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.3. A complaint was made against the petitioner that he has opened a clinic and is doing medical practice unauthorisedly. The petitioner submitted registration certificate issued by the Bihar Medical Board. The said certificate was sent for verification to the Indian Medical Board, Uttar Pradesh (in short the U. P. Board). The U. P. Board informed that the certificate ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath GramIn Bank Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2880; [2001(91)FLR568]; (2001)3UPLBEC2297
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard Mr. S. N. Verma. senior advocate for the petitioners, V. K. S. Chaudhary, senior advocate, who has appeared for the contesting respondents as well as the learned standing counsel.2. In all these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, Writ Petition No. 11665 of 1998 shall be the leading case.3. By means of all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, mainly pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.12.1997, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.4. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in exercise of the power under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), the Regional Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Poshwal Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC560(All)
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The revision is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.3. The claim of the revisionist is that five forms XXXI of the revisionist were stolen and misused by some third party. His contention is that forms were issued for importing chemicals but against the said forms 'supari', 'betel nut' has been imported. The revisionist has informed about the theft of the said forms to the concerned authority and the Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P. had directed investigation by S.I.B. vide order dated June 2, 1999. It is submitted that the enquiry was still going on, yet the assessing authority passed the final assessment order imposing heavy tax upon the revisionist. In appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) an application for staying the recovery of the disputed amount of tax was moved which was partly allowed and stay was granted only with regard to 75 per cent of the disputed amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Maharam and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ278
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27-6-1980, passed by VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 692 of 1979, convicting appellants Maharam (since dead) and Rarnesh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated is as under:-Appellant Maharam was real brother of Hoti Lal and Narendra Prakash, the father of appellant Rarnesh, Tota Ram, the father of appellant Maharam had three other brothers, namely, Mint Lal (PW5), Ballani and Pritam Singh Dal Chand (PW2) is son of Mihi Lal (PW5) and cousin brother of appellant Maharam. 3. Smt. Ram Lali, deceased (32) was previously wife of Hoti Lal. A son named Rajendra was born to Smt. Ram Lali out of her wedlock with Hoti Lal, Hoti Lal was murdered on 9-4-1978. After one and half months of the murder of Hoti Lal, Ram Lali performed 'Dharao' (a customary from of marriage) with Dal Chand (PW2) and started...
Tag this Judgment!Atique Ahmed and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ132
ORDER1. All these three writ petitions which are being heard together have been placed today for further hearing.2. In Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1911 of 2001 the prayer of the petitioner Atique Ahmad, who happens to be a Member of Legislative Assembly for the last 12 years continuously and claims to be popular equally between Hindus and Muslims belonging to Apna Dal, has come up with following prayers :(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties directing them to apprise the petitioner and to submit all the pending cases against the petitioner till date along with actual status report so that the petitioner may not be victim of the fabrication of the false cases in future.(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties directing the Principal Home Secretary/Home Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to issue official orde...
Tag this Judgment!Harkesh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ285
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J. 1. The order dined 20-4-2000 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor directing issue of process against the applicants is under challenge in this revision.2. Facts relevant for the purpose of this revision in brief are that, on a complaint filed by Om Prakash, father of opposite party No. 2 and others regarding an incident of 29-3-1999 the police on the basis of an order made under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. investigated the ease and submitted final report, Ten days thereafter another complaint with the nomenclature 'Application under Section 156(3) Cri.P.C.' was filed by the opposite party No.2 alleging therein that on 12-4-1999 the applicants assaulted him and Ram Chandra and caused them injuries. The Magistrate concerned directed the police to register First Information Report' and investigate the same. Consequently, case was registered and police came into action. The investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses and concluded that, ea...
Tag this Judgment!Jang Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2673; (2002)1UPLBEC55
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that their bhumidhari land Bearing Plot Nos. 313/1, 313/2 and 80/1 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in connection with construction of Domariyaganj Barni (Provincial) Road and Shahpur Singar Jot Marg, running from Sidharthnagar to Domariyaganj bridge situate on Rapti river, but they arc not being paid compensation therefor. 3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, a copy of which was served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on 6thJanuary, 1998, as is evident from the endorsement on the counter-affidavit. 4. Under Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952, rejoinder-affidavit of the petitioner, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Morni Devi and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2675; (2002)1UPLBEC53
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Heard Shri Navin Srivastava holding brief of Shri D.V. Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (the heirs and legal representatives of the sole deceased petitioner, Shri Jagdish Saran), and Shri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P.,representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. By means of instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioners from the eastern portion of the Plot No. 189, measuring 0.34 acres, situate in village Mau, tehsil and district Moradabad, in pursuance of the notification and declaration dated 20th March, 1967 and 24th May, 1967, respectively, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the 'Act').3. It is not disputed that the notifications dated 20th March, 1967 a...
Tag this Judgment!Khattar and Company (Pvt.) Limited Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC401(All)
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. S.P. Kesawarwani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. In the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has challenged the order dated July 30, 2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment 9), Trade Tax, Agra, respondent No. 3 cancelling the certificate issued under Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in favour of the writ petitioner. Under Section 9 of the Act an appeal lies against the said order and there is no dispute with regard to the same before us.3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that since in another writ petition [being Writ Petition No. 741 of 2001 (Tax)], P.N.C. Construction Company Limited v. State of U.P., a Division Bench of this Court has passed the interim order, a similar order should be passed in the instant matter as well. The interim order passed in the aforesaid writ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »