Allahabad Court January 2002 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.
Tej Bhan Singh (In Jail) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC527; 2002CriLJ1864
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 30.4.2001 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident on the basis of which the detention order was passed is a solitary incident and it does not relate to law and order. Hence he submitted that the impugned order is illegal. We do not agree.4. We have carefully perused the impugned detention order and we are of the opinion that the incident relates to public order, and even if it is a solitary incident, the detention order is justified. There is no absolute principle that a detention order cannot be validly passed on the basis of a solitary incident. In fact, it has been held in several decisions that a detention order can be passed even on the basis of a solitary incident depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence.5. The grounds of ...
Hotel Land Mark Employees Union, Kanpur and ors. Vs. Up Registrar, Tra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC554; [2002(92)FLR687]; (2002)1UPLBEC430
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri Shekhar Kumar appearing on behalf of respondents.2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by Up-Registrar, Trade Unions, Kanpur Region, Kanpur--respondent No. 1, on the ground, inter alia, that Up-Reglstrar Trade Unions, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, has no jurisdiction to decide the election dispute between the petitioners and contesting respondents after expiry of one year term of their office under bye laws 37 of Trade Unions.3. Indisputably respondent No. 2 is claiming to have been elected on 26.2.2000 whereas petitioners are claiming to have been elected on 27.2.2000 for the year 2000. It is evident from the perusal of Annexure-13 that the aforesaid dispute relating to validity of election on aforesaid two dates has been- decided by respondent No. 1 on 12.9.2001. The...
Gopi Krishna Srivastava Vs. Deputy Housing Commissioner/Deputy Registr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC604
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was Secretary of the Committee of Management, Jeevan Beema Karmchari Grih Nirman Sahkarl Samiti Limited, Kanpur and he has challenged theimpugned order. In our view, the respondent society is a purely private body and not an instrumentality of the State and hence, no writ lies against it. It is settled law that ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that writ lies against co-operative societies. In our opinion, a writ will lie against a co-operative society which is an instrumentality of the State because of the deep and pervasive control of the State Government. However, no writ will lie against a co-operative society which is not an instrumentality of the State. Hence a writ will not He against every co-operative society but only against a co-operative society which is also an instrumentality of the State. In our opinion, Jeevan Be...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. U.P. State, Through Collector, Ghaziabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC625
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The Ghazlabad Development Authority framed a scheme for the development of the city within the municipal limits and for that purposes, the land of the appellants and of other persons was acquired. The notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 28.12.1963 and the notification 'under Section 6 was Issued on 22.9.1986. The possession of the land was also taken. The award was delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.9.1986. Against that award on the request of the appellants, reference was made before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. That reference No. 25 of 1987 was decided by the judgment dated 30.3.1991 along with other references by Vth Additional District Judge. Ghaziabad. He has awarded compensation @ Rs. 8 per sq. yard to the appellants for their acquired land. 30% solatium has also been awarded along with 9% interest.2. The appellants felt dissatisfied with award and filed this appeal claiming that the com...
Gangotri Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC649; (2002)1UPLBEC553
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Suit No. 501 of 1995 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the revisionist and other respondents for several reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The suit was decided between the revisionist and respondent No. 1 on 6.9.1996 on the basis of the compromise dated 4.9.1996. Annexure-2 to the affidavit. The order of the Civil Judge deciding the suit in terms of the compromises is Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The respondent No. 1 moved an application for the execution of decree for recovery of money in which the revisionist filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. The objections have been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.7.1997 by Civil Judge, Allahabad. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.2. I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate for the revisionist and Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.3. Several legal pleas have been raised by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revi...
Ran Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2002All94
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. The Ghaziabad Development Authority framed a scheme for the development of the city within the municipal limits and for that purposes the land of the appellants and of other persons was acquired. The notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 28-12-1963 and the notification under Section 6 was Issued on 22-9-1986. The possession of the land was also taken. The award was delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer on 22-9-1986. Against that award on the request of the appellants reference was made before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. That reference No. 25 of 1987 was decided by the judgment dated 30-3-1991 along with other references by Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. He has awarded compensation (c) Rs. 8/- per sq. yards to the appellants for their acquired land. 30% solitium has also been awarded along with 9% interest.2. The appellants felt dissatisfied with award and filed this appeal claiming that the c...
Smt. Mithilesh Gupta Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ii, Kanpur Nag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC870; (2002)1UPLBEC751
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.2. The petitioner has prayed that the entire salary of the petitioner be paid to him from 1.4.1991 by the respondents, i.e.. District Inspector of Schools. (D.I.O.S.) II, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 1), Assistant Director of Education II. Kanpur Mandal. Kanpur (respondent No. 2) and Managing Committee, Madan Mohan Agarwal Ballka Higher Secondary School. Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur (respondent No. 3).3. The original prayer was allowed to be amended. The 'school' in question was established in the year 1964 as a Junior High School and was given recognition. In 1988, 15 posts were sanctioned in the school, shown in the letter of Regional Girls Inspectress, IV Region, Allahabad (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) namely one post of Principal, two posts of L.T. grade teachers, five posts of C.T. grade teachers, one post of Class III (Clerk) and five posts of Class IV. The petitio...
inderpal and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2187
J.C. Gupta, J.1. All the seven appellants, above named, have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They have been further sentenced to undergo six months R.I. each under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. Appellants MewaLal, PuttiLal, Inderpal, Narendra Bahadur Singh, Lallu Singh and Shiv Narain alias Patarwar have been sentenced further to two years R.I. each under Section 148 I.P.C. while appellant Babu Ram appellant has been sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 147 I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. In an incident which occurred at the house of SheoLal in village Kachura within the area of police station Narwal, Babu Singh was killed while Bhikam Singh, P.W.3, Bal Kishan Singh, Smt. Kusma P.W. 5. Badalu and Ram Nath sustained injuries. First information report of the said incident was lodged at police station Narwal on the same night at 10.30 p.m. by injured Bhikam Singh P.W. 3 wherein al...
Dr. S.A.R. Chaurasia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC550; [2002(92)FLR1173]; (2002)2UPLBEC1128
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2001 and the order dated 23.11.2001 transferring and promoting the petitioner and thereafter terminating the service on 20.12.2001.3. In our opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is an employee of Span Consultants Private Limited, respondent No. 4 which is a purely private body. In our opinion, ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. No doubt Article 226 is very widely worded. Article 226 of the Constitution states that writs will He to any person or authority and it will lie in enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. However, the words 'to any person' cannot be interpreted literally. The correct interpretation of this expression means that writs will lie to a person or authority to which writs were traditionally issued by British Courts on well establishe...
R.K. Mittal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC558; (2002)1UPLBEC444
M. Katju, J. 1. This petition furnishes a typical instance of a widespread malady which has infected our society and body politic, namely, the belief in the rich and mighty of our country that they are above the law.2. Heard Sri Murli Dhar, Sri S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Misra, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and learned standing counsel.3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 18.6.2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for a mandamus direct-ing the respondents to formulate and finalise a comprehensive scheme for compounding and regularising the non-residential user of the residential premises in question. It is also prayed that the respondent be restrained from cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 or to remove by force petitioner No. 4.4. The facts of the case are that New Okhla industrial Development Authority (hereinafter refer...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »