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.
Ram Janam Ram Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC910b
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is a licensee/allottee of the fair price shop for the purposes of distribution of items reserved under the Public Distribution System. His allotment of shop has been cancelled by the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 17th September, 1995, which has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilthara Road, district Ballia, by his order dated 26th September, 1995. This order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been passed after giving show cause notice to the petitioner.Against the order dated 26th September. 1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, by his order dated 2nd January, 1998, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. After dismissing the said appeal, the grounds sought were that the appeal is barred by time and consequent o...
Mohd. Ayub and anr. Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC911
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27. C.P.C. 82C and List 83A filed by the petitioner have been rejected by the appellate court.2. Petitioner in his application has not given reasons for not filing the evidence during the trial and has not given reason to the satisfaction of the appellate court for not filing the same before the trial court. The respondents have filed their objection to the said application wherein they have stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioners along with their application is wholly false and this application filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLl, Rule 27 due to which the documents filed along with this application 82C are not worthy to be accepted as additional evidence. The appellate court has arrived at the conclusion that the filing of the additional evidence are not such which may attract the...
Sudhir Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1027; (2002)1UPLBEC699
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. The question involved in this case is, 'whether the practice of merely communicating the operative portion of an order and not the complete orders along with reasons (If any) is justified in law.'The Facts and the Decision 2. The petitioner was class four employee in Ghaziabad Judgeship. He was dismissed from service on 18.8.2000. He filed an appeal under Rule 7 of the U. P. Court Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976 (The Rules). This appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Judge. The petitioner was informed about dismissal of his appeal by the letter dated 6.8.2001. Hence, the present writ petition.3. I have heard Sri R. K. Srivastava counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Sudhir Agrawal for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The letter dated 6.8.2001 merely informs the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed but neither the reasons for the order are disclosed, nor the reasoned order has been sent along with the letter. Accor...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1032; (2002)2UPLBEC1418
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 20.7.2000 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Luck now (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 83/11 of 1991.2. The petitioners Vinod Kumar and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 were appointed as Assistant Planners on ad hoc basis in the Town and Country Planning Department of the State Government on 10.2.1984. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 14 to 17 were also appointed on the same post on ad hoc basis on 20.5.1986. The U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement on 7.3.1987 for making selection on 22 posts of Assistant Planners/ Assistant Town Planners. The Commission after holding Interview declared a list of the selected candidates on 31.7.1989. Respondent Nos. 2. 3. 7. 8, 10, 11. 13 to 16 who were already working on ad hoc basis were included in the said list. The list of t...
Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1067
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the revocation of his firearm licence by the licensing authority with regard to his DBBL gun No. 5739, has approached this Court after approaching the appellate authority who endorsed the order passed by the licensing authority. The licensing authority by order dated 16.4.1992 cancelled the petitioner's fire-arm licence after issuing the shuw cause notice to the petitioner on prima facie two grounds ; that the petitioner had been subjected to 16 criminal cases which all resulted into acquittal of the petitioner and Anr., person is facing trial in Case Crime No. 25 of 1991 under Section 307, I.P.C., and on the basis of the aforesaid ground, the licensing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner Bhanu Pratap Singh is a man of dacoity spirit and against whom 16 cases were pending and after acquittal he again involved in his dacoity activities. Recently he is involved in Case Crime No. 25 of 1991. The...
State of U.P. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (4) U.P., Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1074; [2002(93)FLR209]; (2002)2UPLBEC1417
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the employer-State of U. P. against the award dated 16.8.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in adjudication Case No. 129 of 1994. Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. The State Government vide its order dated 10.10.1994 has referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, which runs as under :'Whether the termination of the services of Shri Ranwir Singh son of Shri Nirmal Singh by the employer w.e.f. 31.3.1990 was legal and/or proper? If not to what relief and with what other reliefs is the concerned workman entitled?'3. The objection taken by the employer was that irrigation department of State of U. P. is not an industry. With regard to other aspect that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar months and that the provisions of Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, have not been complied with before terminating the services of the workman...
Virendra Singh Vs. Station Officer, P.S., Kabrai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1080
Anjani Kumar, J,1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15.12.1997 and 19.6.1998, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition-,- respectively, under theprovisions of the Arms Act revoking the licence of his fire-arm. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents. On 2.5.1996, petitioner has been served with a show cause notice dated 8.4.1996 under Section 17 of the Arms Act and in reply thereto, he filed an objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the show cause notice. A case under Section 302. I.P.C. was registered at Kabral police station at Crime No. 44 of 1996 and police has challaned the petitioner. Further a case under Section 25 Arms Act has also been registered under Crime No. 46 of 1996. It is on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the pe...
Mahak Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1102; [2002(93)FLR374]; (2002)2UPLBEC1431
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award of the labour court I, Meerut in adjudication case No. 205 'of 1993 dated 5.9.1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 14.12.1993 have referred the following dispute for adjudication before the labour court. ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh egd flg iq= Jh lq[kchj flag dh lsok,a fnukad 19-9-91 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfprvFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl fgrykHk vFkok vuqrks'k ikus dk vf/kdkjhgS] vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr ** 3. After affording opportunity to the respective parties, i.e.. employer and workman concerned, the labour court has arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman are not proved and he has been punished in excessive as compared to the charges. The labour court further found that the ends of justice ...
Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1256
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties by me vide order dated 30.1.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on.2. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.3. Petitioner who has been denied for grant of fire arms licence by the Licensing Authority, has approached this Court earlier, to the present writ petition. This Court issued a direction, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The direction issued by this Court is quoted below :'Heard Sri Ravindra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has been sanctioned a licence to possess fire arm on 29.4.1995. but the licence is not being issued to him in spile of the fact that about four years have expired. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the District Magistrate. Etah, respondent No. 2 shall himself look into the matter and pass appropriate orders for delivery of licence to the petitioner if i...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1113
Sudhir Narain and V.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 30.10.2001 awarding a total sum of Rs. 2,47,700 as compensation to the claimants-respondents.2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that on 13.6.1996 at about 7.30 a.m. the deceased Jagram, the husband of respondent No. 1 was travelling in tractor No. UP 92-1098 along with one Ghana-ram. Tractor was loaded with the cement poles and aluminium wire for the purpose of installation of electric connection to be installed on the tube-well of the deceased through electricity department. The tractor, due to negligent driving of the driver, overturned, on account of which the deceased received serious injuries resulting into his death. He was aged about 32 years and was working on the post of supervisor in a steel factory at New Delhi and was earning Rs. 2,500 per month. He died leaving behind him, his widow and three minor children.3. The claim petition was c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »