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.
Smt. Shamim Begum and ors. Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court/Prescribed Au ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC775
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Present petition arises out of the impugned Judgment and order dated 11.1.2002, Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the prescribed authority, rejected objections filed by the tenant-petitioners (paper No. 28 and 9C) primarily on the ground that property has been declared as an evacuee property after notice to the parties in question on 25.1.2001 and 19.3.2001 under Section 23 of the Act (Annexures-5 and 6 to the petition). Without entering into merit or demerits of the proceedings under got initiated apparently at the behest of these present petitioners by ensuring certain complaints by proxy, this petition can be disposed of on a short point as discussed hereinafter.2. Admittedly shop in question was let out by one Ram Prasad (since deceased) through legal representative respondent No. 2 in present petition to the petitioner one Late Hakim Imdad Hussain (since deceased) through legal representative present petitioners. A release application dated 13.2.1989 under Sectio...
Dr. (Mrs.) Nandita Singh Vs. Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhayay, Gorakhp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC957; [2002(94)FLR877]
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Chancellor dated 5.10.1999 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). We have carefully perused the impugned order and find no illegality in the same.3. The petitioner was a senior Lecturer in the Department of English. Deen Dayal Upadhayay, Gorakhpur University, having been appointed on 27.4.1987. The post of Reader in English Department was advertised on 20.2.1998 and petitioner and respondent No. 4 applied for the same.4. The respondent No. 4 had earlier on 24.11.1997 applied for promotion as Reader in the English Department by personal promotion. However, she applied again for the post of Reader on regular basis, and she has been selected on 20.9.1998 by the Selection Committee of the University. By its resolution dated 11.10.1998 the Executive Council appointed respondent No. 4 as Reader both on regular basis and by personal promotion.5. The submission of learned counsel for th...
Anand Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1025; [2002(93)FLR477]
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's father was a Senior Divisional Manager in the Department of Telecommunication who died in harness on 30.5.1994. The petitioner's mother made an application that her son, the petitioner, should be given an appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules vide Annexure-1. However, the application was rejected on 26.2.1996 vide Annexure-4 in which it was stated that the case for compassionate appointment has been considered by a High Power Committee and it has been decided that the case of the petitioner is not a fit one for appointment in relaxation of the recruitment rules. Thereafter another representation dated 21.2.1997 was made vide Annexure-5 but it was rejected on 15.1.1998 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed the Chief General Manager to reconsider the request of the applicant vide its order Annexure-7. The petitioner subsequently gave a...
Tribhuwan Misra and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Varanasi and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1038
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. Th epetitioners seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demand any amount of additional tax from them.2. The version of petitioner No. 1 is that he is registered owner of Goods Carriage Vehicle No. U.P. 65F 4152. petitioner No. 2 is the registered owner of Vehicle No. U.P. 67-5394 and petitioner No. 3 is the registered owner of Vehicle No. U.P. 65C-8098 (bus). They were plying their vehicles on temporary permit/special permit. In para 15 of the writ petition, it is stated that the vehicles of the petitioners are not now covered with any permit, as such, they are not liable to pay any amount of additional tax.3. We have heard Sri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel.4. There are two questions, first in regard to liability to pay additional tax under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the vehicles being operated withou...
Ambika Prasad Vs. Collector, Sitapur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1720
R.H. Zaldi, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 276 of 2002 shall be the leading case.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for Issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.4.2001 passed under Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), directing the ejectment of the petitioner and awarding damages against him and the order dated 28.11.2001 whereby the revision filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order passed by the Collector was partly allowed and the amount of damages was enhanced to Rs. 5,000.3. It appears that a portion of Plot Nos. 281M and 289 of village Patti Sawai, district Sitapur. which were recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue papers, was given to the petitio...
Brij Mohan Lal Saxena Vs. the U.P. Power Corporation Limited and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1081
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Yatindra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner was suspended on 7.3.2000 by the Deputy General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Mainpuri. A charge sheet was given to him on 23.6.2000. It appears that it was later on decided that enquiry would be conducted by Enquiry Commission at Lucknow and that the petitioner received a second charge sheet from the Enquiry Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow dated 31.7.2000. He has been charged for handing over the key of the cash chest which should have been kept by him, to his subordinate officer. The cash chest was found vandalized and Rs. 4,81,499/- was stolen in the midnight of 25th/26th of a February, 2000. The substance of the allegation is that petitioner failed to carry-out his duties in protecting the cash chest and appears to have been involved in conspiracy.3. It is submitted that petitioner has been given a charge ...
Awadhrani (Smt.) Vs. Director of Education (Basic) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1921
Sunil Ambwani, J.1.This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.4.2001 passed by Director of Education (Basic), UP., Lucknow rejecting petitioner's representation for grant of regular pay-scale as Class-IV employee in Basic School, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner regular salary in the pay-scale of Class-IV employee from the date of absorption i.e. 23.3.1982 with arrears till date with interest of 18% per annum.2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar appearing for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Sharma for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel.3. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1968 as Part Time Peon in Primary Pathshala, Bhadrekhi, Tahsil-Kalpi. District-Jalaun on consolidated salary. It was initially fixed at Rs 15 p.m.UP. Basic Education Act, 1972 came into force on 17.8.1972 providing for constitution of Basic Education Board consisting of an Ex-Officio Director to be Chairman two persons to be nominated the State Gov...
Sitar Video Hall Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC542
Binod Kumar Roy and U.S. Tripathi, JJ. 1. The petitioner Sitar Video Hall, which claims to be situate in Sakaldiha Bazar of the district Varanasi (now district Chandauli) and had constructed a Pacca Video Hall of bricks and mortar for exhibiting video films as per the requirement of Rule 27 (2) of U. P. Cinematograph' Rules, 1951, has come up with a prayer to quash the communication made by the District Magistrate, Varanasi vide his letter dated 30th April, 1994 (as contained in Annexure-4) that its application filed for grant of relaxation after giving proper thoughts has been disallowed. A further prayer has been made to quash the communication dated 4th January, 1995, made by the Government to the District Magistrate, Varanasi, as contained in Annexure-2 to the supplementary-affidavit intimating that in view of thefact that the required permanent building has not been constructed in terms of Rule 4 of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition By Means of Video) Rules, 1988, nor it...
Jagdish Vs. District Judge, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC766
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard Sri P.N. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava for contesting landlord-respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner admitted his status that of an unauthorised occupant as recorded vide judgment and order dated July 22, 1995 passed by 1st Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 54 of 1983. Rajeshwari v. Jagdish, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and thereby defeated the suit filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 for eviction and possession of the petitioner, apart from other reliefs before Judge Small Causes. In the said suit, apparently no plea was raised by either plaintiff or the defendant (i.e., petitioner and respondent No. 3) that petitioner was in possession of the accommodation in question prior to 5.7.1976, i.e., the date of commencement of Act No. 28 of 1976. 3. After J.S.C.C. suit aforesaid was decided as not maintainable, the landlord respondent No. 3 filed an application before the delegated aut...
Hari Lal and ors. Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC795; [2002(93)FLR149]; (2002)2UPLBEC1407
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These are three connected special appeals directed against a common judgment and order dated 18.4.1996 of a learned single Judge by which three writ petitions were disposed of. Special Appeal No. 445 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 8785 of 1993. Special Appeal No. 446 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 16789 of 1993 and Special Appeal No. 447 of 1998 arises out of Writ Petition No. 8785 of 1993.2. Special Appeal No. 445 of 1998 was filed on 14.8.1996 and was registered as defective Special Appeal No. 78 of 1996 as the same was not .In order. When the appeal was listed for admission on 19.8.1996, no one appeared to press the appeal. The case was listed on several dates and was dismissed in default on 10.3.1999. After restoration of appeal, it was heard on 30.4.2001, when certain directions were issued. The appellants then filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the judgment of a civil suit. Thereafter, all the three appeals have been heard for a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »