Allahabad Court October 2002 Judgments
Basant Lal Vs. Additional District Judge Vi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC287
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,Basant Lal, who alleges himself to be a tenant of the shop in question, challenges the order dated 27.4.1993 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jaunpur, declaringthe shop in question to be deemed vacant under Section 12 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter calledthe 'Act'.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner, Basant Lal preferred a revision before the revisional authority as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. The revisional authority while dismissing the revision vide its judgment and order dated 19th May, 1998, affirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jaunpur, regarding the shop being deemed vacant.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that there is an allotment order dated 28th November, 1975 in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as 'Annexure-1' to t...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Singh Vs. Zonal Manager, L.i.C. of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC284; (2003)1UPLBEC392
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.1.2000 Annexure-8 to the writ petition and the impugned appellate order dated 28/29.9.2000 Annexure-14 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was appointed as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'L.I.C.') in Varanasi division. Initially, the appointment was for three years which was renewed after every three years. The last renewal was granted in 1998 which was valid up to July, 2001.4. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner was doing his work very well and the number of policies sold by him is given in the chart in para 4. The agents of the corporation are non-salaried employees of the corporation. They are paid bonus commission upon sale of the policies. Their job is to search the policy purchasers and to sell the L.I.C. policy to them and they pay the premium directly to the...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Gupta Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC121; I(2003)BC371
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings arising out of Case No. S.D.M./C.L./2001/13, whereby a demand has been raised for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,90,63,344.40 as arrears of land revenue by U. P Finance Corporation. He further prays for deleting him from the array of judgment debtors in the recovery proceedings.3. The admitted facts of the case are that M/s. Apex Leathers (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter called as the borrowing/ obligant company), applied for grant of a loan, and an agreement was executed on 25.5.1992 between the company through its Directors and the U. P. Financial Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as U.P.F.C.). Under the agreement, a loan of Rs. 82 lacs was sanctioned by the U.P.F.C. Out of this sanctioned sum, a sum of Rs. 74,45,336 was paid to the borrower company. For repaymen...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhendra Prasad Mishra Vs. Family Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC195
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-husband challenges the order passed by the Family Court, Allahabad, dated 2.9.1999, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, in Case No. 101 of 1997, Sukhendra Prasad Mishra v. Mamta Devi.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-husband had filed a petition for divorce, which was numbered as Case No. 101 of 1997, against the contesting respondent Mamta Devi before the Family Court, Allahabad, on 17th March, 1997. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, the contesting respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming an amount of Rs. 8,000 as the cost for contesting the aforesaid case and Rs. 2,500 per month as an interim maintenance. It Is this application, which has been decided by the family court vide order dated 2.9.1999, after hearing learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC210; (2003)1UPLBEC68
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Since these two writ petitions filed by the petitioner-State of U. P., through Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Megh Chhappar, Saharanpur against the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 29.9.1997 and 23.10.1997, passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 107 of 1997 and 106 of 1997, respectively, raise common questions, facts and law, therefore, they are heard and decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The following disputes have been referred to by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour court for adjudication :^^D;k lsok;kstdksaa }kjk viusJfed jktsUnz izlkn iq= Jh cythr flag dh lsok,a fnukd 13-5-1988 ls lekIr fd;ktkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha] rkslacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k o frfFk lfgr **^^D;k lok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfediou flag iq= Jh bUnz flag dh lsok,a fnukd 13-5-1988 ls lekIr fd;k ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Siraj Nasir and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC296
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices dated 30.10.2000 issued against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Annexures-3, 4, 5 and 6 to the petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to make demands in pursuance of the aforesaid notices.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioners were given vending licences for selling food stuff on the railway station. True copy of the agreement entered into between the Petitioner No. 1 and the railway authority is Annexure-1 to the petition. The period of licence was from 21.5.1997 to 31.1.2001. The renewal thereafter was at the discretion of the railway administration. The authorities were at liberty to terminate the agreement without assigning any reason and in that event, the licensee would be entitled to get the refund of monthly sum paid for the expired period of licence. Similar agreement was entered into between the railway authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Babu Khan Vs. Van Sanrakshak Evam Kshetriya Nideshak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC199
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The questions of fact and law raised in these two petitions are common, therefore, they are dealt with together. 2. From the prayer in the writ petition, it is abundantly clear that the question raised is covered by a decision of the Apex Court in T. G. Godavarman Thriwnulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 (3) SCC 312, which has been relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench has been pleased to issue direction which runs as under : '.................. It may be notedthat on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment, the State of Uttar Pradesh amended the original rules and as such, the authority should have considered whether the application has been made on the basis of the said rules and the compliance of the rules have been made or not. That aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the authorities. If the appellate authority finds that the application is as per the requirement of the rules and in accordance with the judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Deo NaraIn Tewari Vs. Chandra Prakash JaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1304
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petttioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 4 of 1996 and the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.C.M.M. Vth, Kanpur Nagar. No copy of the said order dated 20.12.1995 has been filed along with the writ petition.3. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with the record of Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998. The record of the said Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998 has been placed before me today.4. The dispute relates to a portion of the House No. 110/211 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur. The said portion has been referred to hereinafter as the 'disputed portion'.5. It appears that by the order dated 29.4.1992, vacancy was declared in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ess Bee Packagers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1054; II(2003)BC305; [2003]117CompCas366(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 15.2.2002 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi by which it has dismissed the appeal on 7.2.2002 for which reasons were given on 15.2.2002, against the order of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 22.11.2001, holding the reference filed by the company under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, on 13.8.1999 to be non-maintainable on account of undue delay of nearly two years.2. I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Saurabh Srivastava for petitioner company ; Sri H.R. Misra for U. P. Financial Corporation and Additional Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The other respondents have not appeared in spite of notices issued to them on 17.4.2002, upon which the service is deemed to be sufficient.3. Since the matter does not involve any...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Prasad Pathak and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1342
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for seeking the relief for issuance of the directions to the U. P. Public Service Commission (here-in-after called as 'the Commission') to forward the names from the waiting list to the State Government, prepared on the basis of the combined State/Upper Subordinated Services Competitive Examinations, 1992, 1994 and 1995 for filling up the vacancies in different departments of the State Government. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in all the aforesaidwrit petitions, these writ petitions are being decided by a common Judgment. 2. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1998, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24576 of 1998 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36283 of 1998 and two other writ petitions (Civil Writ Petition No. 19374 of 1999, Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. and Civil Writ Petition No. 41612 of 1998, Brij Mohan v. State of U. P. and Ors., were decided by this Court with the direction...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »