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.
Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ayukt/Nibandhak, Dugdh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2642
Sudhir Narain, J.1. T h epetitioners have sought to quash the amendment made in bye-laws of the society known as Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd.. petitioner No. 1 (in short the society), by an order passed by the Registrar. Milk Cooperative Society, U. P.. Lucknow on 19.4.2001.2. The society is a registered society under the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder. It has its own bye-laws. The office bearers of the managing committee of the societyare to be elected in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. The last election of the office bearers of the society was held in the year 1998 and the term is expiring on 10.8.2001. The Commissioner/ Registrar. Dugdh Sahakari Samitiyan. Dugdhshala Vikas, Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow, respondent No. 1, has issued notification dated 19.4.2001, by which amendments have been made in the bye-laws of the society. He has approved the impugned bye-law 65 of the society whereby a member of the society shall have no ...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Upper Nibandhak (Prashason) Co-operative Societie ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC342
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner Sri H. N. Tripathi and Sri S. S. Sharma the learned Standing Counsel and Sri O.P. Singh.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.1991 passed by the Upper Nibandhak (Prashasan) Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow by which the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.3. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the U.P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow, appointed the petitioner on 10.5.1958 as Cooperative Supervisor. On 8.2.1979 petitioner was appointed as Inspector (Group II). Petitioner with effect from 1.3.1979 has been working on the post of Inspector (Group II). In 1988 petitioner was posted as Cooperative Inspector Group II and Cooperative Marketting Society, Chandausi, Moradabad, A disciplinary enquiry was ini...
Upendra Nath Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC298
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri J. N. Varma Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the respondent No. 4 by which the appointment of the petitioner on a class III post has been cancelled. Petitioner was appointed by Chief Medical Superintendent by the appointment order dated 26.10.1995 on a Class III post of Registration-cum-Record Keeper. In the order dated 31.3.1997 it has been stated that the Chief Medical Superintendent is not the appointing authority of class III post. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the appointments made by Dr. O.S. Singh, Chief Medical Superintendent on 26.10.1995 were contrary to rules. On 26.10.1995 Dr. 0. S. Singh has made appointment of three employees on class III posts and 21 on class IV posts. Counter affidavit in detail gives the various irregularities committed in the appointment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted ...
Sheela Arvind (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC743
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of.2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant automatic promotion to the petitioners in C.T. Grade after working and completion of five years in B.T.C. Grade from their respective initial appointments and to pay their salary with all consequential benefits with 12.5% interest. A further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus of directing the respondents that the petitioners No. 1 to 13 and 16 be given salary of L.T. Grade also treating their ten years' service over all satisfactory service after adding five years in C.T. Grade with all benefits. A writ of certiorari has also been claimed praying for quashing the impugned order dated 19.5.2000 Annexure-22 to the writ petition.3. The facts of the case as emerge...
Rana Ranjeet Singh and anr. Vs. the Vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu Uni ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC693
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Petitioners Rana Ranjeet Singh and Ratnakar Tripathi filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Regulation framed and printed for the Sessions 2000-2001 to the extent of Clause 18, which imposes the limitation of 5 years in completing the course of M.C.A. of students of B.H.U. and further seeking a direction that the respondents be direction that the respondents be directed not to implement the aforesaid rules, Annexure-13 to the writ petition.2. The respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit. They have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit. Under the interim order dated 28.2.2001 passed by this Court, which runs as under :--'Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in back paper examination of M.C.A. scheduled to start from 14.3.2001, after permittin...
Barnam Singh Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan Department and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC735
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri K. Ajit Counsel for the petitioners and learned Stanaing Counsel.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 petitioner was appointed as Driver in Samaj Kalyan Department, Agra in the year 1982. With regard to an incident of theft of jeep from the office of Additional District Development Officer in the night of 30th November, 1989/1st December, 1989 the petitioner was placed under suspension, A charge sheet dated 11th June, 1990 was issued against the petitioner. In the charge-sheet charge levelled against the petitioner was that on 30th November, 1989/1st December, 1989, petitioner was unauthorisingly sleeping in the office along with the Chowkidar, Brij Rai Verma, Brij Raj Verma at 4 A.M. went to his home after informing the petitioner on which the petitioner said that he would be there. It...
Sarojana Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2546; (2001)3UPLBEC2118
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur andquashing the enquiry report dated 12.9.2000. Prayer for a direction inthe nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to realize the amount in question from the petitioner has also been made.3. The petitioner Smt. Sarojna Devi was holding the office of Pradhan of Village. Barigaon, Post Barigaon, tahsll Khajani, Block Belghat, district Gorakhpur. She continued to hold the said office till June, 2000. During continuance of her term, several complaints were received in the office of the District Magistrate against the petitioner. The complaints were also sent by the villagers to other authorities. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the said complaints, directed the Distri...
Shiv Kumar Dubey/Dwivedi Vs. Prabhari Adhikari (Shiksha), Nagar Kshetr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2821; [2001(91)FLR1131]
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2001 of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by him was dismissed.2. The appellant was head master of a primary school and his date of birth is 1.7.1941. He received a notice dated 24.2.2001 that he would retire from the service on 30.6.2001. The appellant filed a representation against the notice stating that he was entitled to continue in service till 30.6.2002. This representation was rejected by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by the order dated 19.4.2001. The appellant then filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order, which as already stated, was dismissed on 22.5.2001.3. The claim of the appellant is founded on Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which is being reproduced below :'29. Age of superannuation.--Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in w...
G.B. Marketing Corpn. Vs. Maya Agro Products Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)4CompLJ147(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court on 18-7-2000, the respondent-company has filed a counter affidavit of Shri Ashok Mitra on 4-4-2001. A rejoinder affidavit of Shri Onkar Agarwal was filed on 12-4-2001. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed. On 10-7-2001, the respondent-company was granted opportunity of filing the accounts of the applicant-company, maintained with the respondent-company as well as the last audited balance sheet. The matter was listed again on 26-7-2001 and further time was granted to comply with the order.2. Today the matter was taken up in revised list. No one appears for the respondent-company. I have heard Shri R.P. Agarwal. G.B. Marketing Corpn. is partnership working as C and P agent and dealer of the respondent-company for marketing its products. A security of Rs. 10 lakhs was deposited bearing 15 per cent interest by the applicant for the respondent-company. It is alleged that the agency was discontinued an...
Jai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4416
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Shri R.P. Singh Yadava for the applicant in revision and the learned A.G.A. for the State.2. It appears that on the basis of first information report dated 1-6-1994 case was investigated and charge-sheet against the applicant and three others was submitted in the Court of the Magistrate on 4-7-1994. The Magistrate took cognizance and sent the record to copyright section for preparation of copies. The record was then received back in the Court of the Magistrate on 16-7-1994. The accused persons appeared in the Court on 18-8-1994. The case remained pending in the Court of Magistrate and 17-2-1997 was fixed for framing of charges. On this date an application was moved on behalf of the accused persons to discharge them on the basis of guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1619. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application on the ground that since the offence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »