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.
Ajai Kumar Mishra Vs. Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC70; [2003(96)FLR1085]; (2003)IILLJ64All
G.P. Mathur and K.N. Sinha, JJ.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.11.2001, passed by the Assistant General Manager of Allahabad Bank (Disciplinary Authority). A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to nominate a defence representative.2. The petitioner is a manager in Allahabad Bank. A show cause notice dated 24.3.2001 was issued to him to which he gave a reply. Thereafter, the bank decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and a charge-sheet dated 23.8.2001, containing the articles of charges, list of witnesses and documents was served upon him. After the petitioner had submitted his explanation, he was informed that Sri R. K. Singh (respondent No. 2) had been appointed as enquiry officer for holding disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner then moved an application on 20.10.2001, that Sri Surendra Mlsra, a reti...
Sri Girdhar Gopal Gulati Vs. Dy. Cit. [Alongwith Ita Nos. 66 and
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)88ITD585(All.)
1. All these three appeals filed by the assessees involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, all the three appeals are disposed of by common order. All the three appeals have been filed by the assessees against the order of CIT, Allahabad under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. No date on the order of the CIT is however, mentioned.2. The following grounds of appeal have been raised against the order of the CIT under Section 263 in the case of Sri Girdhar Gopal Gulati.Similar grounds of appeal have been raised by Sri J.K. Gulati and Sri Satpal Gulati in their appeals: "(i) Because the order passed Under Section 263 setting aside the assessment order dated 9.3.2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and bad in law, read with the facts stated in the statement of fact which forms a part of this appeal. (ii) Because, it is wrong to say that the proper enquiry has not been made by the Assessing Authority with regard to property income and investm...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Santosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)87ITD107(All.)
1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 8th Nov., 1995, and the Cross-objection has been filed by the assessee. The following grounds of appeal have been taken : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case by annulling the assessment order dt. 30th March, 1995, which was passed as per provisions of Section 148/143(3) of the IT Act and also keeping in view the appellate order dt. 21st March, 1995 passed under Section 250 of the IT Act. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following his appellate order dt. 23rd March, 1995 in A. No. 83/ACIT/IC/Alld./1993-94 where he himself had directed to pass an order under Section 143(3) in accordance with the provisions of Section 44AC in this case, and which had become final. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in annulling the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dt. 30th March, 1995. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the as...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Gajadhar Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC316
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Special Appeal No. 110 of 2000, has been filed by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38530 of 1999. Following the judgment and order given in the connected Writ Petition No. 13710 of 1999, Mahendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U. P. and Ors., the writ petition was allowed and the termination order dated 5.6.1973 was quashed-2. Special Appeal No. 112 of 2000 has been filed by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38534 of 1999, wherein the learned single Judge had followed the decision of this Court in the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1993, decided on 26.9.1997 Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., and allowed the writ petition by quashing the termination order dated 20.11.1975.3. Special Appeal No. 113 of 2000, has been filed by the State respond...
Sant Ram Pal Vs. Zonal Manager (North) F.C.i. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC108; [2002(95)FLR854]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The claim of the petitioner isthat he was appointed as Watchman on probation for period of one year in Food Corporation of India and was posted at Lalitpur. After completing the period of probation, he was confirmed on the post of Watchman on 15.12.1979. The petitioner was suspended on 28.10.1983 due to his alleged involvement in criminal case under Sections 307, 380, 409, 120, I.P.C. and under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He was acquitted of the charges in the said criminal case by order dated 21.10.1983, passed by the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Hamirpur. After acquittal his order of suspension was revoked by the Senior Regional Manager vide order dated 31.1.1987.3. It is averred in the petition that Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I., Lucknow, Respondent No. 2 issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 17.9.1988 inter alia that when he was posted as Watchman during the year 1983 he failed to maintain his absolute sinceri...
Sanjai Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC153
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.1.2000, passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U. P. Lucknow, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.2. The petitioner was appointed on 25.3.1995 as a driver at Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Noorpur, district Bijnor by the respondent. He joined the post in the department on 10.4.1995.3. On 30.11.1999, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent directing him to submit the original driving licence issued by the R.T.O., Mumbai along with his reply within fifteen days alleging that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud, which is punishable and is a misconduct for which major penalty can be imposed. The petitioner vide letter dated 20.12.1999, sought fifteen days more time to submit required document along with his reply.4. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 15.1.2000 on the ground that he had obtained employment on the basis of...
Dilip Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC57; [2003(96)FLR103]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :'(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the illegal appointment letter vide Annexure-4 and no speaking order dated 16.10.1996 vide Annexure-6 in consequence and in pursuance of Annexure-4 and restrain the respondent No. 2 not to do the posting of respondent No. 3 during pendency of this writ petition. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior AccountClerk according to G.O. vide Annexures-3 and 3A to this writ petition with all consequential benefits and all reliefs ; (c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case ; (d) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.' 2. Prior to filing of the present writ petition, petitioner ha...
North Eastern Railway Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. Deputy Labour Comm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC104; [2003(96)FLR296]; (2003)IILLJ201All
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. All the three writ petitions since based on the common facts and raises common question of law, therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties.2. The first writ petition, i.e., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37935 of 1999 came up for hearing before me on 15th October, 2001 and the said petition was dismissed by me as having become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioners had made the following prayers :(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 19.8.1999 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur ; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recognise and register and not to interfere in the working of Central Working Committee of North Eastern Railway Employees Union (P.R.K.S.) Gorakhpur, elected on 29.6.1999 in an ele...
Rajesh Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC294; (2003)1UPLBEC349
S.K. Sen, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Shri S. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 36280 of 2002 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order of Summary Court Martial and the order dated 13.7.1998 passed by Chief of Army Staff. The petitioner was found guilty of making a wilfully false answer to questions set forth in the prescribed form and at the time of enrolment.3. A Criminal Case No. 79 of 1993 was registered against the appellant which was committed to Session on 18.4.1994. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the order of Summary Court Martial. The counsel for the appellant contended that since he was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 29.7.2002, ...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-ii and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC206; [2003(96)FLR634]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the reference order dated 16.7.1996 passed by the State Government by which the State Government referred the following dispute to be adjudicated upon by the labour court pending decision :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjkifjf'k'V esa vafdr 112 Jfedksa dks dk;Z dh izfr ds vuqlkj LoPNdkj dkinuke ,oa rn~uqlkj osrueku deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr u fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfudgS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfedx.k D;k YkkHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] fdlfrfFk ,oa vU; fooj.k lfgr **2. On the aforesaid reference, the petitioner filed this writ petition and this Court has been pleased to pass the following interim order dated 22.4.1997 :'Pending motion hearing, let notice be issued to 3rd respondent who may file counter-affidavit by the date fixed. In the meanwhile, further proceeding in Adjudication Case No. 253 of 1996 pursuant to impugned reference dated 16.7.1996 shall remain stayed.'3. As a consequence of passing of the int...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »