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.
Munni Devi Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC877; (2002)2UPLBEC1024
Palok Basu and Lakshmi Bihari,JJ. 1. Smt. Munnl Devi has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order dated 20.1.2001 (Annexure-12) passed by the Allahabad Development Authority (for short A.D.A.) directing her ejectment from flat No. E.W.S. 6 in a scheme known as 'Agnipath' (hereinafter referred to as flat in scheme) be quashed. The other prayer, which is not connected with the ejectment, is that the petitioner should be directed to pay Rs. 10,000 only against flat No. 6.2. When the petition was filed, a Division Bench entertained the matter, admitted it and status quo as on the date. i.e.. 16.2.2001 was directed to be maintained. The A.D.A. and the prospective allottees of the said accommodation flat No. E.W.S. 6 filed counter-affidavits with applications to vacate the stay order. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. Under the pressing urgency felt by the respondents who are allottees-applicant in response to the advertisement made by the A.D.A., date...
Suraj Singh Saini Vs. District Judge, Ghaziabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1020
A.K. Yog, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by Suraj SinghSaini claiming to be tenant of house No. 90, Bag Bhatari, G.T. Road near Chawadhary Mod district Ghaziabad. Father-in-law of respondent No. 2 was the landlord, who filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'). The tenant petitioner contested the same and that parties had opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases under law.2. Landlord had filed release application under Section 25 of the Act earlier in 1974 (case No. 21 of1974) but the same was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated June 7,1975/Annexure-5 to the petition.3. The landlord filed another application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (being Rent Case No. 6 of 1993). The tenant filed objections dated 3.2.1994 after parties led evidence in support of their respective ca...
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1140; [2002(95)FLR1063]; (2002)2UPLBEC1052
Anjani Kumar, J.1. State Government by its order dated 31st March. 1994, referred the following dispute to Labour Court, Rampur :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh lqHkk'k flag iq= Jh rkjhQ pUnz dh lsok,a fnukad 1-10-1991 ls lekIr fd;ktkuk mfpr@oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/krJfed fdl fgrykHk@vuqrks'k ikus dkvf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.kksa lfgr 2. Both the employer and workman concerned exchanged their pleadings. In its pleading, the employer has taken a case that since the workman concerned has not completed 240 days in previous calendar year, therefore, while terminating his services, it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. which admittedly was not complied with. The labour court considered the aforesaid case and the evidence on behalf of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and since it is admitted that the provision...
Rameshwar and Brajesh Vs. Viith Additional District and Sessions Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1137
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioners-plaintiffs filed Suit No. 392 of 1982 before the Court of Munsif, Deoria with the following reliefs :^^1 ;g fd olnwj Jh cSukek 22-12-1981 ogd oknhx.k cuke izfroknhx.k ealw[kk djus dhfMxzh iznku fd;k tkos A2;g fd olnwj fMxzh bErukbZ nokeh izfroknh la[;k ,d dks loZFkk ds fy, euk fd;ktkos fd gLo rQlhy tSlk fookfnr vk'kfy;kr esa fdlh izdkj dh eqtkfger u djsa vkSju dCtk n[ky ge oknhx.k esa vojks/k mRiUu djs A3;g fd ge oknhx.k dh izfroknh ua- ,d ls [kpkZ eqdnek o odhy esgurkuk fnykus dhfMxzh iznku fd;k tkos A4;g fd vykok ;k ctk; nknjlh etdwjkokyk ds oknhx.k ftl fdlh vU; nknjlh ds eqLrgydjkj ik;s tkos mldh Hkh fMxzh okgd oknhx.k cuke izfroknhx.k lkfnj dj fn;k tkosA** 2. An objection was filed by the defendants before the trial court that the suit is not cognizable before the civil court, therefore, the same should be rejected and the petitioners-plaintiffs be relegated to the revenue court. The trial court decided the said suit in favour of the plaintiffs that t...
Prashant Kumar Tyagi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1302
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Mathur, who represents the Committee of Management, respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel, who represents respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.5.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 and order/letter dated 10.5.1999 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexures-8 and 9) respectively. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner along with arrears of salary w.e.f. 22.2.1999.3. On account of retirement of one Lecturer in the College, said vacancy was filled in by ad hoc promotion and thus short-term vacancy arose in the college in L.T. grade. As the aforesaid vacancy in L.T. grade was filled up on short-term basis, the Manager requested the D.I.O.S. to fill up the same. As no action was taken by the D.I.O.S., the management appears to have advertised the post in question ...
Dr. Manju Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2597; (2002)3UPLBEC2752
S.K. Sen, J.1. This is an application under Order XIV of United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The facts, inter alia, involved in this writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1678 (S/B) of 1998 are that the petitioner Dr. Manju Verma, (hereinafter referred to as the first petitioner) was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in State Medical College in November 1975, and was posted as ad hoc lecturer at Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi. In February 1978, she was transferred as ad hoc lecturer by the State Government to Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, where while working as ad hoc lecturer, she was regularised as lecturer under the provisions of the Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1979. She was promoted in December 1980 as ad hoc Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department and was posted at Baba Raghav Das Medical College, Gorakhpur, but on account of the death of her father-in-law, she was unabl...
Monnet Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC499
1. The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2 to decide its applications for stay of the recovery of the amount.2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and molasses at its factory. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Muzaffar nagar made the demand of Central Excise as well imposed penalty by different orders. The petitioner preferred 7 appeals before respondent No. 2. The appeals were filed between the period 19.2.2000 and 11.12.2001 along with the application that the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with the deposit subject to such conditions, as he may deem fit. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:SECTION 35F. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied.--Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods...
Mahesh Tiwari and Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2711
1. Both the above mentioned appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 20-10-1981 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Hamirpur convicting Mahesh Tiwari appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 2576 of 1981 under Section 302 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also convicting appellants, Sukhdev, Kuddus and Lallu alias Dau of Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 1981 under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, as revealed in the F.I.R. and the evidence on record is that on 29-11-1980 at about 1.30 p.m. accused Mahesh Tiwari along with co-accused Sukhdev, Kuddus and Lallu alias Dau were moving near 'Narihya Nala' in Qasba Panchamdiha. Mahesh Tiwari was having a country made pistol in his hand which he was brandishing while moving on the road. Seeing this unusual act of Mahesh Tiwari, a group of teen-aged children, perhaps out of curiosity, collected around Mahesh Tiwari. Seeing children assembling, acc...
Mst. Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC548; [2002(93)FLR153]; (2002)1UPLBEC428
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Ch. N.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri N.D. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a widow of an employee of the State Government, has claimed for the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghazipur (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay the family pension to the petitioner. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (d) Award the costs of petition in favour of the petitioner.' 3. The order impugned in the present writ petition dated 30.7.2001 has been passed in pursuance of the direc...
Excellent Foundary Fluxes Co. and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC580; I(2003)BC263
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This revision under Section 115, C.P.C. has been preferred against the order, dated 3.1.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad in Suit No. 1031 of 1992. The facts enumerated in the revision are as follows :'The opposite party, Bank, filed the Original Suit No. 1031 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 26,63,631.35 p. against the revisionists. The suit was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) for disposal. The revisionists contested the suit. One of the pleas taken by them was that the entire transaction of loan took place at Delhi and cause of action for the suit arose at Delhi, that, therefore, the Courtof 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Preliminary issue was framed on this point and the case was fixed for disposal of that preliminary issue.'2. In the meantime. (The) Recovery o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »