Allahabad Court October 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.
Matsya Jivi Sahakari Samiti Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All27; 2003(3)AWC1755
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the fishery lease granted to respondent No. 3.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of this case are that there is a pond situate at village Balepar, district Sant Kabir Nagar, U.P. The lease of the pond was earlier granted to one Nabi Sarwar and that lease expired on 7-7-1999. Thereafter a lease was to be granted. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the Gram Panchayat of the village passed a resolution dated 18-12-1999 to the effect that the lease should be granted in favour of the petitioner society @ Rs. 8,500/- per year for a period of ten years. True copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is Annexure 2 to the petition. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is alleged that in compliance of the above resolution of the Gram Panchayat the petitioner society was given possession of the pond and it deposited Rs. 8,500/- with the Gram Sabha. A true copy of the receipt o...
Jagdish Chandra Vs. Arvind Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All119
1. I have heard Shri K.K. Arora for the appellant and Sri Trioki Nath for the respondents.2. This second appeal was filed by the defendant against the appellate decree dated 6-5-2002. It is admitted position that on the date the first appeal was decided, the second appeal against the decree was maintainable under Section 100, C.P.C. However, Section 102, C.P.C. has been substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002 enforced w.e.f. 1-7-2002 to provide that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.3. It is not disputed that this second appeal is covered by this section and a preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Tirloki Nath that this second appeal is not maintainable. As against this it has been argued by Shri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant that the right of appeal accrued to him on the date of the judgment of the first appellate Court, which was...
Nau Bahar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2210
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by me and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have dismissed the petition vide order dated 8th October, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who is a licensee for selling diesel oil under the provisions of U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981, which hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'licensing order', challenges the order of the appellate authority dated 27th January, 1994, passed in Appeal No. 9 of 1992-1993. The aforesaid licensing order has been issued in exercise of power under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Petitioner has annexed a copy of the licence as Annexure-1 to this petition, which was granted under the provisions of the afore...
Ram Sagar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1113
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. Ram Sagar and Brikshpal are the appellants in this appeal, who are aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 21-8-81 passed by Sri M. S. Premi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, convicting them under Section 395, I.P.O. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Three Sessions Trials No. 74 of 1981, 77 of 1981 and 101 of 1981 were tried together. One Chandra Prakash was accused in S. T. No. 74 of 1981 with the appellant Ram Sagar. Appellant Brikshpal was accused in S. T. No. 77 of 1981. There was one Ram Pal accused in S. T. No. 101 of 1981. Chandra Prakash and Ram Pal were acquitted.2. An armed dacoity as committed in between the night of 12/13th May, 1977 close to midnight by 11-12 desperadoes at the house of PW-1 Sonpal, in village Harha Purwa, a Hamlet of village Ismailpur, Police Station Gur...
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC43; [2002(95)FLR191]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioners-State of U. P. aggrieved by the award of the labour court dated 6.5.1999, passed in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 1995 approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 3.6.1995 referred the following dispute before the labour court for adjudication :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh lqcsnkj iq= Jh nsohnk odZeSu dks fnukad 1-9-1992 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk** 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It is not in dispute that while terminating the services of theworkman concerned w.e.f. 1.9.1992, he has neither been served with a notice, nor the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter...
Ram Bihari Lal Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC202
S.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Singh learned senior standing counsel for the Union of India who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. Challenge before this Court is the order of suspension dated 30.9.2002, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a confirmedemployee and there has been no complaint against his work at any point of time and It Is for various reasons as has been disclosed in the writ petition, petitioner has been illegally placed under suspension. It has been submitted that the order of suspension although Is not required to give reasons in detail and evidence in support therefore, but at the same time It must be clear from the order that what are the specific charges against the petitioner and what is the gravity thereof. It is argued that in view of the aforesaid infirmities the order of suspension is liable to be set aside. 3. Sri Singh ...
Raj Kumar Yadav (In Jail) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2075
M.C. Jain, J. 1. Having been convicted by the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by judgment dated 16-10-1994 in S.T. No. 4 of 1992 and S.T. No. 5 of 1992, the accused has preferred this appeal. Both the trials have been decided by a common judgment. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment in S.T. No. 4 of 1992 under Section 302, I.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act in connected S.T. No. 5 of 1992. Both the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly for proper appreciation. The victim of the felony, who was murdered, was Ram Kishan. The incident occurred on 16-7-1991 at about 2.45 p.m. in Sector 19, NOIDA, and the report was lodged the same day by Heera Lal, cousin of the deceased at 3.30 p.m. The deceased was alive at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. but he died later on at 7.30 pm. Ram Kishan had his shop in D-Block of Sector 21. The accused-appellant Raj Kumar had taken a l...
Nirmal Kumar JaIn Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC114; [2003(96)FLR301]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the award of the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, passed in Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 1997. The following matter was referred by the Central Government to the said Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication :'Whether the action of the management of Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jhanst in terminating the services of Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Peon at Head Office w.e.f. 26.8.1985 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'2. After issuance of notice, the concerned workman has filed his written statement stating therein that he was engaged as a water boy cum messenger by the employer and was asked to work at Kalyanpur Branch of the Bank. He joined on 31st January, 1984. Later on by the order of the Chairman of the Branch, he was asked to report for duty at Head Office. It is pertinent to note that...
Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC113
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as Constable in Railway Protection Force, he was served with a charge-sheet, dated 21.10.1992. Following two charges were levelled against the petitioner :(1) While discharging his duties in Train No. 2622 Up on 4/5.10.1992, the petitioner failed to get down at Jhansi with other staff and was over carried upto Beena. (2) The petitioner failed to come on duty which was entrusted upon him on 9/10.10.1992, in shift to perform the colony patrolling duty at Jhansi when he was detailed along with Constable Suresh Chandra Upadhyay. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply and the inquiry officer, after holding the enquiry, submitted his report on 9.10.1992 holding that both the charges against the delinquent constable are proved.4. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter by the impugned order dated 14.12.1992 removed the petitioner from service wi...
Suraj Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC199b
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 31.5.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Under Secretary of the State Government whereby his representation for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under the U. P. Freedom Fighters Grant of Pension Rules, 1975, has been rejected. 2. Apparently, the order impugned in the writ petition does not contain any reason and for this simple reason, this order of rejection of the representation cannot be sustained. Learned standing counsel has tried to justify the impugned order on the basis that standing counsel may be granted time to file counter-affidavit wherein they will give the reasons for refusing the payment of political pension to the petitioner. Even if such a statement is made in the counter-affidavit, then also in view of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851, reason, if at all, has to be given, is to be given in the impugne...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »