Allahabad Court September 2001 Judgments
Shiv Dularey Gupta Vs. Director of Local Bodies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3188
S.R. Alam, J. 1. Instant Special Appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated July 31, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 24401 of 1989 dismissing the writ petition.2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner-appellant was working as a Clerk since September, 1971 in Nagar Palika, Bindki, district Fatehpur. He was, however, suspended on 19.5.1988 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 23.9.1988 containing two charges viz. (i) that at several places in the town unauthorised constructions are being made without getting the approval of the plan and he has not taken any effective steps in the matter onaccount of which constructions are being made on nazul land without obtaining any approval, (ii) that certain queries were made in respect of the construction of 'paushala' which he did not comply on account of which the construction of the said 'paushala' is delayed, was served upon him, copy of which is enclos...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuvir Singh Bhatty Vs. Ram Chandra Waman Subhedar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3140
J. Sahai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a plot of land in old Kanpur. The trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has reversed the decree for specific performance but has granted refund of the bare amount of earnest money without interest. This, the plaintiff feels, is a poor recompense to him in the deal which he had entered into on 23.10.1981 with the defendant. He had then paid a sum of Rs. 41,670 as earnest money which was half the total price settled. The defendant was to obtain permission of sale from the competent authority, urban land ceiling and to inform the plaintiff about it. Within 3 months thereof, the plaintiff would pay the balance money and get the sale deed registered. The whole transaction of sale was to be over within a short span of six months. That, however, did not happen. It appears that the defendant did not apply for permission for a good three years, as there was some dispute betw...
Tag this Judgment!R. Saini Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2836; [2002(92)FLR487]; (2002)1UPLBEC68
S.R. Singh, J.1. Present petition has been instituted by Dr. 10305 N Lt. Col. R. Saini canvassing the validity of the impugned orders dated 20.12.2000 bearing No. 01098/SB (M)/No. 3/2000/DGAFMS/Denta-1 Annexure-3 to the petition. The reliefs sought are to quash the aforestated impugned orders by a writ of certiorari and to command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Colonel discounting the punishment inflicted on him in the year 1983 by a writ of mandamus.2. Sequential details of the case are that the petitioner was commissioned to Army Dental Corps (A.D.C.) on December 21, 1977. As captain in the A.D.C., the petitioner was tried by General Court-martial and the guilt of outraging the modesty of one Miss P. daughter of a Sqn. Ldr. in the family ward of Military Hospital, Jodhpur was brought home to him and accordingly, the General Court-martial commended forfeiture of 20 months' service for the purpose of promotion and punishment of 'seve...
Tag this Judgment!Balbiri Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1513
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These are two appeals. Crl. Appeal No. 269 of 1994 was filed by Smt. Balbiri and the other appeal No. 270 of 1994 was filed by Smt. Nirmala. Both these appeals arise from the same F.I.R. and the arrest effected on 18-6-1988 at 6.30 p.m. from one and the same place. They are decided by a common judgment to avoid any repetition of facts.2. Smt. Balbiri has preferred appeal against her conviction under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine she is to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years.3. The brief story of the case is that on 18-6-1988, S.I. Udal Singh along with S.I. O.P. Sharma and large contingent of other police constables in a P.A.C. truck was on Gast duty. When he reached in the premises of Shalimar Garden he received an information from Mukhbir (informer) that some men and women having formed a gang have come from Delhi and are selling smack at Bhopura Road. Believing the informa...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Jha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2922; (2001)3UPLBEC2503
S.R. Singh and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.1. The petitioner was appointed full time woman member of the District Consumer Protection Forum, Kanpur Nagar on 27.3.1997. It appears that in the matter of U. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh, listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.1.2001, the petitioner brought certain facts to the notice of the Apex Court through a letter Annexure-1 addressed to the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India. New Delhi, therein pointing out the laxity on the part of the State Government in the matter of appointment of Chairman, District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar. This was taken by the Government as an act of indiscipline and by means of letter dated 28.2.2001, she was called upon to submit her comments in respect of eight points mentioned therein. A copy of the letter dated 28.2.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charge-sheet. A copy of the rep...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC3149; (2001)3UPLBEC2530
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. The aforesaid writ petitions are posted today for admission. The learned standing counsel, Sri L.P. Tewari is raising preliminary objections of general importance in these writ petitions inviting my attention to conflicting decisions rendered by learned Judges constituting Division Benches of coordinate jurisdiction of this Court staring to each other. I am of the view that disposal of these writ petitions either at admission stage or at final hearing is not possible unless conflicting opinions of different Division Benches of this Court are resolved by a larger Bench under Chapter V, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court. In such a situation, this Court has no alternative except keeping in view judicial decorum and propriety to refer the questions involved in these writ petitions to a larger Bench for consideration and resolving conflicts between different Division Benches of this Court relating to grant of fishery leases, its renewal and jurisdiction to cancel su...
Tag this Judgment!Gulfam Exporter Vs. Abdul Mujeeb Abdul Wajid (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC311
Khem Karan, J.1. This appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Copyright. 1957 (for short Act of 1957) is directed against the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by Copyright Board (for short the Board) in Case No. 8 of 1992 under Section 50 of the Act of 1957, by which it refused to expunge the entry No. A-51185-91 made in respect of an artistic work, named 'Device Two Hukkas' in favour of the respondents.2. A brief reference to the facts leading to this appeal has to be made so as to appreciate the matter in controversy. The respondent No. 1 moved one application in April, 1986, under Section 45 of the Act of 1957 for registering its copyright in the said artistic work. In the application, the name of the author was shown as Nadeem of Moradabad but the appellants claimed themselves to be the owners of the artistic work. The language was stated to be Urdu. It was also stated that the appellants had first published the artistic work in India in the year 1985. Due to certain defects ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Verma Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Al ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC335; (2002)1UPLBEC676
Ashish N. Trivedi, J.1. Petitioner, an Upper Division Assistant posted at Lucknow Bench of this Court, was placed under suspension on account of certain omissions and commissions amounting to grave misconduct and disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner.2. Various orders from time to time passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice were challenged by the petitioner in following nine writ petitions and the Special Appeal.Description of the writ petitions and the special appeal is being given hereunder ;(1) Writ Petition No. 545 (S/S) of 2000, Rakesh Verma v. Hon'ble Chief Justice and Ors., tied up with Hon'ble Justice Pradeep Kant.(2) Writ Petition No. 7574 (S/S) of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 7361 (S/S) of 2000 connected Writ Petition.(3) Writ Petition No. 525 (S/S) of 2001,(4) Writ Petition No. 1648 (S/S) of 2001.(5) Writ Petition No. 1649 (S/S) of 2001.(6) Writ Petition No. 1870 (S/S) of 2001.Part heard : Hon'ble Justice J. Bhalla.(7) Writ Petition No. 2479 (S/S) of 2001.(...
Tag this Judgment!Farah Mustafa Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Edu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2948; (2001)3UPLBEC2497
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.2000 of a learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The appellant (writ petitioner) appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 1999, as a private candidate but she was declared to have failed. She applied for scrutiny in three subjects, namely, Hindi, English and Civics but she was informed that there was no change in the marks secured by her and, consequently, her result remained the same. Thereafter, she filed the writ petition for quashing the decision of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Board) which had declared her fail and also for some other reliefs. The writ petition was summarily dismissed by the learned single Judge on 11.2.2000.3. The Board has framed regulations regarding scrutiny of answer-books and the relevant provisions dealing with the subject of scrutiny, namely. Regulation 21...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Development Authority and anr. Vs. Vidyawati Construction Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2809; (2002)1UPLBEC300
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.1999 and decree dated 14.7.1999 making the award of the arbitrator dated 23.5.1997 as rule of Court and rejecting the objection of the appellants under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the 'Act').2. The Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, appellant, framed a project for construction of multi-storied commercial complex at Clock Tower, Chowk, Allahabad. It Invited tenders for constructing the commercial complex as framed by it. M/s. VIdyawati Construction Company, the respondent (hereinafter called the respondent-company) submitted the tender. The cost of the project was quantified approximately at Rs. 57,00,000. The company submitted its tender which was accepted by the appellant, Allahabad Development Authority (in short the A.D.A.). As per terms of the agreement, the construction was to be completed within a period of six months. The period was, however, extended. It was completed o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »