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.
State of U.P. Vs. Labour Court, Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1216; [2002(94)FLR1049]; (2002)2UPLBEC1111
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, Agra, dated 22.4.1994 and the order dated 9.1.1996 passed In adjudication case No. 44 of 1992, Annexures-2 and 4 to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that State Government vide its order dated 31.12.1991 has referred the following, dispute under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. for adjudication before the respondent-labour court, which reads as follows :'Whether the termination ofthe services of Sri MathuraPrasad, son of Mewa Ram, CattleGuard w.e.f. 25.7.1989 by theemployer was valid and legal? Ifnot, then to what relief the,concerned workman was entitledfor 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 workm...
Govind Ballabh Joshi Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR874]; (2002)IILLJ272All; (2002)2UPLBEC1084
S.K. Sen, C.J. and R.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Bhoopencira Nath Singh learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.C. Dwivedi for respondents No. 3 and Sri Vipin Sinha learned Standing counsel for State Bank of India.2. This Special appeal is directed against an order passed by learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The contention of the writ petitioner-appellant is that he was transferred contrary to 'Shastri Award'. He was posted at Nainital and was transferred to Tanda district Rampur and as such he was transferred out of State without his consent. The Shastri award provides that an employee cannot be transferred out of State without his consent.3. The writ petition was dismissed on the very first day, which in our view was not proper. The matter should have been heard on the basis of the affidavit and even should have been decided since several controversies and questions have been raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, we direct that the petition should be heard and dis...
Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1301
Janardan Sahai, J.1. By the impugned order the petitioner's candidature for training in Special B.T.C. Course, 2001 has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. certificate obtained by the petitioner is from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut Correspondent Course.2. Shri Manu Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the circular of the University dated 19.5.1999 in which it is provided in paragraph 3 that examination in the Correspondence Course and regular examination is on the basis of the same question papers and in paragraph 5 it is stated that B.Ed. degree in respect of both the courses are similarly recognised. He also relies upon a decision in the case of Karan Pal Singh v. Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad, Lucknow and Anr., 2001 (1) ESC 215 : (2001) 1 UPLBEC 753, by which the controversy is covered and in which reference has been made to other decisions and it has been held that the order rejecting the candidature on the ground that th...
Harish Chandra Tiwari Vs. Baiju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC313
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. We are sad that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India (for short 'the disciplinary committee') despite being the acru statutory body entrusted with the upkeep of the probity of legal profession in India opted to treat a very grave professional misconduct in a comparatively lighter vein. The disciplinary committee held an advocate guilty of breach of trust for misappropriating the asset of a 'poor' client. But having held so, the disciplinary committee has chosen to impose a punishment of suspending the advocate from practice for a period of three years.2. The delinquent advocate filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). We told him that in the event of this Court upholding the finding of misconduct, he should show cause why the punishment shall not be enhanced to remove his name from the roll of the Bar Council of the State concerned. Notice on that aspect has been accepted by Mr. M. M. Kashyap, learned Coun...
Ram Prakash Srivastava Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC528
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner's father had a licence of single barrel gun, who admittedly died in the year1980. This is also admitted fact that the petitioner was not major at the time of death of his father and he attained the majority in the year 1993. The further fact is that the petitioner immediately deposited the gun with the licensee arm dealer M/s. Bhagwan Das Munni Lal and gun remained in the deposit of the same licensee firm-arm dealer in 1993. He applied for grant of licence of the S.B.B.L. gun which application has been rejected by the licensing authority District Magistrate only on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any proof regarding disposal of concerned fire-arm which he deposited in 1991 and it should have been disposed of within one year by the licensing authority which he has not done and this disentitles the petitioner for grant of licence. The further ground by the licensing authority is that during the period 1980-1993, no incident has taken place whic...
Mahesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC555; [2002(92)FLR726]; (2002)1UPLBEC423
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarito quash the order dated 12.2.1998, Annexure-12 to the writ petition.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for special selection to the post of ad hoc Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) from amongst the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe vide advertisement dated 23.10.1994. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A Selection Committee consisting of several senior officers held interview of the eligible qualified candidates and thereafter vide order dated 8.2.1995, order of appointment was issued to the successful candidate whereby 132 S.C./S.T. candidates including the petitioner were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineers in P.W.D. for one year or till the availability of duly selected candidates through the U. P. Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. True copy of the appointment order along with the list of successful candidate...
Smt. Meera Kaushik and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC618; (2002)1UPLBEC782
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as belonging to State-wide cadre or plane cadre in group 'kha' post in U. P. Saichhik Samanya Shiksha Samvarg Seva Niyamavali, 1992 and to consider them for all purposes like transfer and promotion to group 'ka' post treating them as such. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to constitute a combined seniority list in general cadre (hill and plain) and to make promotion, etc. from combined seniority list in group 'ka' post or to treat the petitioner as eligible to promotion in plane cadre to group 'ka' post by treating them as belonging to plane cadre in group 'kha' post. It has further been prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners senior to the appointees of 1987 who had been selected and appointed in pursuance of 1985-86 advertisement (Inspecting Branch).2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It appe...
Kangal and ors. Vs. Smt. Atwariya Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC630
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. Opposite party Smt. Atwariya Devl filed Suit No. 52 of 1984 against her husband Jeeut for maintenance including the past maintenance. She also made a prayer in the suit for creating a charge for maintenance on Plot No. 410 owned by her husband.2. Before any order could be passed in the suit, Jeeut transferred Plot No. 410 to the present revisionists by a sale deed. Thereafter, the present revisionists were impleaded in the suit as parties on their request. During the pendency of the suit, Jeeut died on 7.1.1987. On his death, the opposite party moved an application 25A for substitution of name of Lakhia, the only daughter of Jeeut as his legal heir. The application was opposed on the ground that cause of action for maintenance did not survive and, therefore, the suit has abated ; that the application for substitution is, therefore, liable to be rejected. The matter was considered by Sri S.K. Srivastava, District Judge, Ghazipur, and by order dated 11.3.1987, he reject...
Sunil Vs. District Magistrate, Bijnor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC636
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ.1. In Habeas Corpus Petition No. 243254 of 2001 the impugned detention order was passed on 18.12.2000 by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year. That period of one year has expired and hence, this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 2. It is deeply regrettable that this habeas corpus petition and several other petitions listed before us today (mentioned above), have become infructuous because the period of detention has expired. We are informed that a large number of habeas corpus petitions were dismissed as infructuous in November and December last year.3. The Supreme Court has observed that Article 21 is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in the Constitution, as individual liberty is a precious right. It is deeply regrettable that habeas corpus petitions are not being heard and the petitions are becoming infructuous, as the cases were not heard before the expiry of the detention period. Ther...
Udai Singh Bhanuvanshi Vs. Kunj Behari Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC647
A.K. Yog, J.1. Udai Singh Bhanuvanshi, petitioner, who is the tenant of residential accommodation on the first floor of house No. 118/408. Kaushalpuri, Kanpur Nagar (for short called 'the accommodation') comprising of two rooms, one store dochhatti verandah, aangan and bath room at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, has approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated August 25, 2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) allowing landlords' Rent Appeal No. 243 of 1995, Kunj Behari Tewari v. Udai Singh Bhanuwanshi, under Section 22 U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for shorf called 'the Act1) arising out of the judgment and order dated November 8, 1995 passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act in Rent Control Case No. 157 of 1993, Kunj Behari v. Udai Singh, dismissing the release application filed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »