Allahabad Court August 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.
H.S. Mishra Vs. Secretary/General Manager, Mau-aima Sahkari Katai Mill ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2681; [2001(91)FLR503]; (2002)1UPLBEC327
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri S.M. Misra counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Tiwari counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order dated 18.3.1997 Annexure-8 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, The fads of the case as emerge from the pleadings of both the parties are that U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur, is an apex society as defined in U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner states that the Federation is the recruiting body and the appointing authority of the petitioner. Petitioner has stated that he was posted in different Katai Mills and ultimately, he was transferred and posted at Mau Aima Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., in the year 1992. Petitioner was suspended by letter dated 8.7.1996 and was served with a charge...
AmIn Sons Ltd. Vs. Shyam Transport and Forwarding Agency
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC299
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 1.1.2000 passed by Upper Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vth, Unnao in Regular Suit Wo. 420 of 1997, Amin Sons v. Shyam Transport, by which valuation of said suit had been made at Rs. 3,19,916.00 and direction had been Issued to the plaintiff-revisionist to deposit court-fee according to the said valuation.2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a limited company, which is registered under the Companies Act. A Regular Suit bearing No. 420 of 1997 was filed by the revisionist for mandatory injunction, in which the following reliefs were sought :(1) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant, its officers, employees, agents and representatives may kindly be directed either to return the goods, description of which are given in para 4 of the plaint In the perfect condition within stipulated time fixed by this Court or they should be di...
Tanda Textiles and Processing Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC307
Ashish N. Trivedi and R. D. Shukta, JJ.1. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government under Section 12 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (36 of 1977) has no authority in law to recover the water cess from the petitioner.2. Section 12 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act. 1977 (36 of 1977) is reproduced hereunder :'12. Any amount due under this Act (Including any interest or penalty payable under Section 10 or Section 11, as the case may be), from any person carrying on any specified industry or from any local authority may be recovered by the Central Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.'3. A bare perusal of Section 12 of the Act indicates that the Central Government is empowered to levy and realize the water cess and not the State Government.4. Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents placed before us a copy of the notification dated 16.1.1980 is...
Abdul Haleem Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4786
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision was filed against the order upholding the applicant's conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the lower appellate Court.2. In the present case on 4-4-1976 the Food Inspector had taken sample of mustard oil from, the shop of the applicant. After completing all the necessary formalities as required under the law, one of the sample phials was sent: for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 7.9% tisi oil. Therefore, in his opinion, it was an admixture of two oils which is prohibited under Rule 44(e), A complaint was filed after procuring consent from C.M.O., Azamgarh.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of Section 13(2) of P.F.A. Act as amended in 1976. It is further contended that the sanction order does not show any application of mind by the sanctioning authority. There is nothing on record to show that all the necessary pap...
Kailash Chandra (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ665
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision was filed by the applicant against his conviction by the trial Court under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and consequent sentence of 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The applicant was convicted by the trial Court for the violation of Rule 37 of the Act because the quantum of salt found by the Public Analyst was marginally in excess from the quantity shown on the label.2. The facts of the case are that on 3-5-1985 Sri Rameshwar Prasad, Food Inspector, had taken samples of Sabji Masala packets at 11.00 a.m. from the shop of the accused named as 'Vikas Traders' in Katra Bazar, Lalitpur. He prepared the requisite form and receipt after paying the price of the sample. These papers were signed by the accused. Nine packets were taken. Three different sets of samples were prepared, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the salt contained in the sample was found to be 6.1%...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2465; (2002)1UPLBEC179
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. By this writ petition. the petitioner has challenged the select list dated 3.12.1998, in so far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, and has prayed for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the select list of routine grade clerk/typist, dated 3.12.1998.2. The employment on the post of routine grade clerk/typist in the State Law Office of the High Court at Allahabad under the Advocate General has been the subject-matter of controversy for a long time. In Writ Petition No. 42506 of 1993 between Shiv Pratap Yadau and Ors. and State of U.P. and Anr. decided on 8.8.1995, challenging the continuance of daily wage employees in the office of Advocate General of State, and to direct the respondents to make appointment on these posts after considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the daily wage employees ; directions were issued, that after receiving the approval to the proposals for...
Kailash Nath Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2473
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ, order or direction In the nature of mandamus directing the authority concerned to follow the promotion policy from the class IV employee to class III employee as per Government direction forthwith. A further prayer has been made for directing the authority concerned to follow the norms for promotion of class IV employee as is followed for promotion of class III employee to Trade Tax Officer Grade II. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged 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 petitioners are working as class IV employees in Trade Tax Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. The date of appointment and the qualifications of the petitioners have been mentioned in paragraph 2 to the writ petition. Petitioners were appointed on various dates between March, 1974 to No...
Kshatradhari Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2501; (2002)1UPLBEC195
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed on 2.3.1994 but its hearing was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that a similar controversy was pending in an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The writ petition was listed several times for admission but every time its hearing was adjourned on the aforesaid ground. When the petition was listed on 23.7.2001. Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he wanted to argue the writ petition on merits and thereafter the petition was heard on 24.7.2001. 2. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of Varanasi. The respondents in the writ petition are (1) State of Uttar Pradesh. (2) Governor of Uttar Pradesh, (3) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and (4) Selection Committee, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. The petitioner has sought several reliefs but the principal reliefs are (A) and (B) which are being reprodu...
Brahma Pal Singh Randi Vs. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2505; (2002)1UPLBEC794
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri B.Malik, counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. K. Shukla appearing for the respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel. 2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21st August. 1995, passed by Deputy Director of Education 1st Region, Meerut, declaring respondent No. 2 senior to the petitioner. 4. The dispute, in the writ petition, relates to inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Necessary facts for determining thecontroversy in the writ petition are as follows ; D.A.V. Inter College, Kishanpur Berar, district Meerut, is a recognised institution governed by provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner was appointed in the college as Science Demonstrator on 15.1.1971. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher...
Kishan Swaroop Srivastava Vs. Director of Panchayatiraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2643; (2001)3UPLBEC1985
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Y. K. Saxena, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th June, 1998 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Firozabad, and consequential order dated 18th June, 1998 passed by the Block Development Officer, Jasrana, district Firozabad in so far as they relate to recovery of 16 months salary with interest. A writ of mandamus has further been prayed commanding the respondents not to realise 16 months back salary with interest. A further prayer has also been made directing the respondents to pay the petitioner salary of the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and also the salary for the month of May, 1998 and June, 1998.4. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »