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.
Aqueel Abbas Rizvi Vs. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1757; [2003(96)FLR101]
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the impugned order dated 18th May, 2002, by which the order dated 7th March, 2000, passed by the respondent thereby granting regularisation on class III post, was rescinded and he was relegated to work on a class IV post in the Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur.2. The matrix of necessary facts as unfolded in the writ petition is that the petitioner entered the service of Nagar Nigam as Class IV employee on ad hoc basis and he came to be regularised on Class IV post by means of order dated 27.5.1993. Subsequently, on a Writ Petition being No. 20469 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, this Court by means of the judgment/order dated 9.9.1999, enjoined the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation on Class III post in the Health Department of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur within two months and this furnished foundation for passing the order dated 7th March, 2000 ; thereby, the petitioner was bestowed th...
Smt. Bitola Munwari Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2212
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri H. M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Bisariya, learned counsel for the duly impleaded respondents. 2, Sri P. K. Bisariya has raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and he has remedy as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue and Ors., 1990 RD 291, wherein the Full Bench has said that the order passed by the revisional authority will apply to recovery of arrears and the orders passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Sri Bisariya has submitted that in view of this Full Bench decision, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Board of Revenue. 3. Sri H, M. Srivastava has submitted that since the ...
Tola Ram Sons Dal Mill Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN602(All)
ORDERAt the instance of the assessee the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the salary and interest paid by the assessee-firm to its partners, S/Sri Jeevan Mal and Chandan Mal was disallowable under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to be added back to the total income of the assessee-firm for assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80' ?2. We have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned advocate for assessee and Sri Prakash Krishna, learned advocate appearing for the revenue and have perused the records of the case.3. It is not in dispute before us that the question involved in the instant. Reference has already been settled by several decisions and the learned counsel for the parties have also submitted that so far as the salary aspect is concerned the same is not to be deductible in view of the judgment and decision of the Madras High Court in the case of...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC66
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The case has been taken up in the revised list. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. No one appears for the contesting respondent.2. Since all the aforesaid threewrit petitions raise common questionof facts and law, therefore, they arebeing disposed of finally by a commonjudgment.3. By means of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Union of India, in all the aforesaid three petitions, has challenged the order dated 31.10.1987, passed by respondent No. 1 under the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeals filed by respondent No. 2, in each petition and set aside the order dated 23.7.1984 passed by the Estate Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'prescribed authority').4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions are ...
i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC91; (2003)ILLJ442All
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Petitioner is a company within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with a workforce of 1542 workmen on its roll. The State of U. P. issued notification dated 27.2.1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by way of 7th Amendment, 1990 to Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Welfare Officers' Rules, 1955, which was prompted by the recommen-dations of the Second Pay Commission Report and also on the basis of the Equivalence Committee 1986. The amendment, it is alleged, has been given retrospective effect, i.e., 1st day of July, 1979. It may aptly be noted here that the recommendation of the Pay Commission are with regard to an amendment in Rule 3 of the rules which deals with grades and emoluments of the Welfare Officers in grade I, II and III. To enforce in obedience the aforesaid notification containing Amendment, Director Factories U. P. initiated correspon-dence with the petitioner and the last communication addressed by the Director Factories is dated...
Rekhi Spring Co. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC198; [2002(95)FLR1061]; (2003)1UPLBEC685
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner-employer has filed this writ petition against the order dated 27.5.1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-1, U. P., Allahabad, passed in Adjudication Case No. 153 of 1992. The following preliminary issue was framed by the Industrial Tribunal :'Whether the domestic enquiry held by the employer was fair, reasonable and not violative of principles of natural justice?'3. The Industrial Tribunal in the order impugned has arrived at theconclusion that the domestic enquiry, as held by the employer, is unfair, improper and violative of the principles of natural justice. The preliminary issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the workman and against the employer. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal has fixed 18th July, 1995, for evidence, if any, to prove the charges and on other points involved in the case. The employer instead of adducing the evidence to prove the preliminary issue has rushed up to this Court by fil...
Harihar Prasad Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC186
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 8.4.1988 published on 16.5.1988 by the labour court. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which the reference made by State Government was decided against petitioner.2. The facts borne out from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as First Aid Khalasi in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, on 18.12,1951 and was promoted as Meter Reader with effect from 6.12.1954.3. By order dated 21.7.1972, the petitioner was allowed to work as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to his work on substantive post of Meter Reader on the condition that he shall not be paid any additional salary or allowance till any order of exemption from the basic qualification was received from the Commissioner. This order was for three months or till the appointment as per rules is made whichever was earlier.4. The Commissioner by order dated 7.3.1973 granted exemption of basic qualification as required under U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (De...
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1727; [2002(95)FLR1062]; (2003)1UPLBEC151
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Perused the office report dated 7.10.2002. The attested true copy of the stay vacation application along with counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri M. H. Khan. The said stay vacation application along with counter-affidavit is accepted on record and treated as original.2. The petitioner-employer has challenged the order dated 31,7.1995 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, whereby he has accepted the application for referring the dispute to the proper labour court/industrial Tribunal and also condoned the delay in fling the application. It is this order which is under challenge.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Dy. Labour Commissioner who has passed the aforesaid order has acted in utter disregard of law in condoning the delay and making reference. It would not be out of place to mention that because of interim order of this Court in spite of order dated 31.7,1995, the matter has yet not been referred to the proper labour court. In a re...
Krishna Avatar Vs. Smt. Vimla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1809
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Judge, Moradabad, to transfer the Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999, Hans Raj v. Krishna Avatar from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad to the District Judge, Moradabad or any other Presiding Officer.2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in respect of the disputed accommodation specified in detail at the foot of the release application (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The said release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide its order dated 22.9.1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).3. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents filed an appeal under Section 22 of U. P Act No. XIII of 1972...
Masih UddIn Vs. L.N. Mishra, Director Technical Education Directorate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC333
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present contempt petition has its genesis in the order dated 26.8.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1994 the alleged flouting of which has been stated to be causative factor for institution of the contempt petition.2. The background of the Institution of the contempt petition is that by means of the order dated 26.8.1994, the Principal, Government Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Teliarganj, Allahabad was enjoined to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. It is alleged that the conduct of the Principal aforestated in not honouring the order in compliance has manifested his contumacious disregard and displayed wilful disrespect to the order of this Court.3. In the wake of filing of the contempt petition, notices were issued and in response to the notices, counter-affidavit came to be filed by the contemnor, namely L.N. Mishr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »