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.
Pahelwan Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1102
M.C. Jain, J.1. Four appellants in this appeal are (1) Pahalwan Singh (2) Shiv Pal Singh (3) Cyan Singh and (4) Mahendra Singh alias Middi Singh. who have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1981 passed by Sri L.S.P. Singh, I Additional Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1979. All of them have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.2. A brief resume of the facts is necessary. The appellants Shiv Pal Singh and Gyan Singh are real brothers and they are first cousins of the appellant Pahalwan Singh. The fourth appellant Mahendra Singh alias Middi Singh was an eyewitness in the case of the murder of Ram Prasad, father of the appellant Pahalwan Singh. The deceased of the present incident was Jai Ram whose son PW 2 Ram Autar -- informant is. For the murder of Ram Prasad (father of the appellant Pahalawan Singh); the deceased Jai Ram, his son informant -- PW 2 Ram Autar, nephew Shambhu and tw...
Santosh Chauhan (Smt.) Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Ist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC62
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. In Paragraph '8' of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondents are interfering with the petitioner's right to continue on the post and are not deciding her representation, dated 18.8.1988, which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.3. This Court by order, dated August 23, 1988 had directed that services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the return of Smt. Rajbala Devi to the post on which the petitioner has been appointed or a regular candidate selected by the Board or any reserve pool Teacher becomes available for appointment or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whichever is earlier.4. The case of the petitioner is that one Smt. Rajala Devi was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade in 1980. She was subsequently promoted in L.T. Grade on 25.6.1985. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused ...
Battu Singh Vs. Assistant Bhulekh Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC75
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lekhpal. Thereafter, he was officiating on the post of Kanoongo in Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad at the relevant time. He alleges that his date of birth as entered in the service record is 8th January, 1933. At the time of filing of the writ petition the following ad- interim order was passed on 24.1.1991:'Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this writ petition for admission after the expiry of the aforesaid date.Until further orders of this Court the respondents are restrained from retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to continue in service after he attains the age of 60 years.'3. By order dated 15th September, 1997 this Court directed the petit...
Ram Garib and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR6]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-workmen challenge the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi passed in adjudication case Nos. 320, 321, 322, 323, 325 and 329 of 1988, dated 12.4.1996, Annexure-V to the writ petition. The following dispute has been referred to by the State Government before the Labour Court for adjudication.^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedjke xjhc iq= Jh lqeu in [kyklh dh fnukd 21-4-1986 ls dk;Z ls i`Fkd@ofpr rFkk fnukad 22-5-1986 ls NVuh fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr ** 2. The Labour Court has consolidated all the cases, out of which the present petitioners filed the present writ petition, on the ground that the facts and pleadings of the parties are common and therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. The facts and pleadings of the adjudication case No. 322 of 1988 have been t...
Nagar Nigam Through Its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Vs. Presiding Officer, L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR858]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 23rd August, 1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 102 of 1987. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government for adjudication:^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedeksgu 'kekZ iq= Jh cky eqdqUn] vkDVk; eqgfjZj dh lsok;sa fnukad 10-7-84 lslekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS A;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@mi'ke fjyhQikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr**2. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court has framed an additional issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was legal and justified? If any, its effects?3. The Labour Court after giving opportunity to both the parties, namely, the petitioner-employer and the concerned workman had arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted...
Ganesh Ram Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR907]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition);(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 not to interfere with the functioning of the financial work of the petitioner;(c) issue any other such writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;(d) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.2. A perusal of the judgment dated 16.3.2000 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2378 of 1999 filed by the petitioner, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, clearly demonstrates that earl...
Commissioner and ors. Vs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC44
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. These five special appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2001 of a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16451 of 1999, Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, and also by the auction-purchasers.2. M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. filed the writ petition for quashing the sale proclamation dated 28.3.1992, the order dated 30.5.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, confirming the auction sale of the properties of the petitioner and the order dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-1 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (in short, the Rules).3. The Secretary, Chini Mill Mazdor Hitkari Samiti, Meerut, moved an application before the Collector, Meerut, for recovery of certain amount from M/s. Jaswant Suga...
Smart Chip Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All80
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition and the connected writ petition No. 21933 of 2002 are being disposed off by a common judgment. 2. This writ petition illustrates how the new technology which has changed the word in recent years has entered our law Courts. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the tender dated 1-5-2002 issued by the respondents, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to consider all the bids of the tenders who qualify the condition as mentioned in the tender Clause 2.21 and thereafter evaluate the technical bids of those who qualify in the technical specifications as provided in the guidelines dated 17-10-2001 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Morth') and to abide by the terms and conditions, directions and guidelines issued by the MORTH. 4. Heard Sri Raju Ramchandran. and Sri S.C. Budhwar learned Senior Advocate...
Subhash Chandra Dixit and anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1403; (2003)1UPLBEC528
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the result of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Examination, 2000, which was declared on 25.9.2001. A further prayer has been made that the U. P. Public Service Commission be directed to declare the result of the aforesaid examination on the basis of actual marks secured by the candidates without applying the formula of scaling or in the alternative the scaling system should be applied to the marks awarded in interview and the result be declared thereafter.2. The U. P. Public Service Commission (for short Commission) issued an advertisement for making selection on the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and it was notified that the last date for submission of application form for Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Examination, 2000, was 30th November, 2000. The petitioners submitted their application forms and appeared in the written examination, which was held from 4th to 6th August, 2000. The result of the wri...
Uttam Gulati (Dr.) (Mrs.) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through the Spec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC229
R.B. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 12.7,1999 ( Annexure-6 ) and for the consequential benefits including promotion, seniority w.e.f. 1990 as had been given to the respondent No. 2 who admittedly was placed below the petitioner in the main select list of 1990, and for further relief of arrears of difference of salary paid and due to the petitioner.2. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner is M.A. ( Hindi and Economics ) from University of Kanpur. Ph.D. in (Hindi), B.Ed, from Bundelkhand University was initially selected in 1990 under Subordinate Education Service (Gazetted) (in short SESG) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-E.B. -75-3200-100-3500 (women branch) and was initially appointed as Deputy Inspectress of Girls School (DIOGS ), district Bahraich, U.P. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »