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.
Kailash Nath Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC673b; (2002)1UPLBEC468
ORDERS.K. Sen, C.J.1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned advocate for the appellant and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.2. This special appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant.3. In the Instant case, the Chief of the Army Staff being the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal under the Army Act which was preferred by the writ petitioner. It may also be taken note of that the writ petition was filed in the year 1984 and dismissed only on the ground of territorial Jurisdiction in the year 1995. In this connection, we may refer to an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in C.A. Wo. 92 of 2001, Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and Anr., decided on 19th January, 2001. wherein it has, inter alia, been held :'The writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order was passed in 1999. This is a fact that the High Court should have taken into consideration. Mo...
State of U.P. Through Collector, Meerut and anr. Vs. Labour Court (1st ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC794; [2002(92)FLR977]; (2002)1UPLBEC634
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioners-state have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of Labour Court (1st), U. P., Meerut dated 23.8.1995, passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993, whereby an application filed by therespondent-workman under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been allowed and a direction has been issued that the respondent No. 2 be paid salary w.e.f. 4th July, 1987 to July, 1993 and also the bonus for the years 1987 to 1992, which comes total to Rs. 1,55,821.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated against which he has filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15172 of 1987, which is still pending and in which interim order has been passed staying the order terminating the services of the concerned workman. The workman has come up with an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which...
Dr. R.C. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC824; [2002(93)FLR874]; (2002)1UPLBEC767
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna who has appeared on behalf of respondents.2. The petitioner has completed the age of sixty years on 31.12.2001 and he was acting Principal of the institution in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to continue as acting Principal till 30.6.2002. We do not agree with this submission and we are of the opinion that the petitioner can continue only as Lecturer till 30.6.2002 and not as acting Principal. In this connection the Supreme Court in S.K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and Ors. 2000 (4) AWC 2713 (SC) : JT 2000 (8) SC 267, held that a person cannot continue as acting Principal after he crosses the age of sixty years. It appears that subsequently a Government order was issued by the U. P. Government on 2.6.2001 which was amended by a subsequent Government order dated 5.7.2001. The Government order dated 5.7.2001 has clarified that an ad hoc Pri...
K.K. Dutta Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Fede ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC425
S.K Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner is challenging his removal order dated 16.8.96 passed by the Acting Secretary/General Manager of U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., vide Annexure-1 -K to the writ petition.3. It appears that the petitioner was given charge-sheet on 8.5.96 Annexure-3 to the writ petition and supplementary charge-sheet, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Petitioner denied the charges and the copy this reply is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.4. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that no date was fixed for the enquiry or for recording the evidence and hence no proper opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. The same allegation has been made in para 9 of the writ petition. The petitioner received the charge-sheet to which he gave a reply, and thereafter a show-cause notice dated 8.8.96, was issued alongwith a copy of the enquiry report on 8.8.96. However, it appears that the so-called inquiry report on 8.8.96. w...
Makkhan Lal Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC662
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Smt. Vidyawati Gupta, who was the owner andlandlady of House No. 17/25 Hamilton Road, Allahabad filed Suit No. 93/79 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the Executive Engineer. Investigation and Planning Division of State of Uttar Pradesh. There was an office of Executive Engineer in the premises. Sri M. A. Majid was posted as Executive Engineer and was living in a portion of the premises and he was also made a party in the suit. The suit was decreed on 13.4.1982. that decree has been put to execution by Smt. Vidyawati Gupta, who has since died on 15.12.1982. However, the execution is being prosecuted by respondent No. 1 Sri Rajesh Pandey. He claims that Smt. Vidyawati Gupta left Smt. Meera Gupta and Sri Rakesh Gupta as her heirs ; that Smt. Meera Gupta and Sri Rakesh Gupta executed the power-of-attorney in his favour to execute the decree. Therefore, he is entitled to execute the decree and has filed general power-of-attorney executed in his favour.2....
Allahabad Development Authority and anr. Vs. Ram Prakash Pandey and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC666; (2002)1UPLBEC631
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the appellants and respondent No. 2 for injunction to restrain them from demolishing the house in dispute No. 33/2 Stanley Road, Allahabad. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 purchased Plot No. 36 from Hari Mohan Tandon on 3.12.1980. He submitted a plan for sanction for construction of the house before the appellant on 14.9.1981. It was not sanctioned and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 on 16.12.1981, served a notice on the appellant thatand, therefore, either the plan be sanctioned or if there is any objection, he may be informed. No reply was given by the appellant. Therefore, on 27.12.1981 the respondent No. 1 again served a notice that he is starting the constructions. The constructions were complete regarding which the Information was given and the house was given number 33/2 Stanley Road, Allahabad and was also assessed to house tax. However, later on the appellant treated the constructions as illegal and served...
Krishna Kant Tiwari and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC709; (2002)1UPLBEC475
Yatindra Singh, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the validity of the Government orders (G.Os.) dated 6.6.2001, 21.9.2001 and 19.11.2001 so far as they, * repatriate the employees of three departments (who were earlier transferred to Gram Panchayats) to their parent departments ; * re-designate and confine the duties of employees of two departments (still under control and supervision of Gram Panchayats) according to their educational qualifications. The consequential orders in pursuance of these G.Os. are also challenged. They are of different dates but their validity depends upon the validity of the aforesaid G.Os. ; they float or sink with the G.Os. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE G.Os. 2. India, that is, Bharat is Union of States. Its territories consist of territories of the States and the Union Territories. Geographically, they are divided into districts. A district consists of urban and rural areas. Urban areas are governed by Municipalities and rural areas by panchayats. Our ma...
Chandra Prakash Arora Etc. Vs. Parveen Kumar Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC670
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. All these three revisions have been preferred against different orders passed in Original Suit No. 85 of 1999 pending in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur. The revisionist in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2001 is the defendant in the suit which was filed by Praveen Kumar, opposite party for dissolution of partnership and accounting.2. In brief, it is alleged that the business of partnership was being carried on in shop No. 2/521/2-3 situated at Railway Road, Saharanpur under the name and style of Cambridge Book Depot; that the partnership was entered on 18-7-1995.3. On the request of the opposite party order was passed by the trial Court and an inventory of the articles of the shop was prepared. The shop was also locked and the key of the shop is with the official receiver. The applicant who is defendant in the suit moved an application 195-C under Section 151, CPC alleging that there is no order for appointment of receiver nor there ...
Rajendra Prasad Garg Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC978
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.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 certtorari quashing the order dated 22.3.1986 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance), Agra and the order dated 22.11.1991 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad/the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act (for short 'the Act).3. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the land in dispute measuring 330 sq. metres was purchased by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 55 per sq. metre on higher purchase basis. The higher purchase agreement was executed in respect of the land in dispute in the year 1975, which provided that the entire sale consideration shall be paid by October, 1979. It is stated that the petitioner was given possession over...
State of U.P. Vs. Umesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1194; [2002(93)FLR407]; (2002)3UPLBEC2207
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award of the labour court, Allahabad dated 21.7.1995. passed in Adjudication Case No. 33 of 1992, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that State Government vide its order dated13.3.1992 has referred the following dispute under Section 4K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. for adjudication before the respondent labour court, which reads as follows : 'Whether the termination of the services of Sri Umesh Chandra (workman) w.e.f. 1.3.1988 by the employer was valid and legal? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman was entitled for. etc.?'3. It is submitted that the employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their written statements and adduced their evidence and argued the matter before the labour court. The workman's case is that he was appointed in the organisatio...