Allahabad Court February 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.
Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and ors. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1794; 2002(2)AWC1010
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Smt. Raj Kumari and others have challenged the order dated 28.11.1996. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/UpperDistrict Judge, IInd, district Jaunpur, respondent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1996. The petitioners, who were claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur, which shall hereinafter be referred to as Tribunal' filed a claim petition under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing the parties have given an award awarding a sum of Rs. 2,64,600 in favour of the petitioners-claimants vide its order dated 22.7.1994 in M.A.O. No. 11 of 1987. Thereafter, the owner and driver of the said vehicle, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 4, Instead of filing an appeal under Section 110D of the Act. filed a restoration application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after g...
Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. Engineers India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1037; [2002(93)FLR479]; (2002)2UPLBEC1430
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 3.1.2000 and 19.1.2000 Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner was appointed initially by the order dated 3.1.2000 in the service of the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order dated 3.1.2000 states that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis till 12.1.2000. Thereafter by letter dated 19.1.2000 the period of his contractual appointment was extended for a further period of three months, i.e.. till 11.4.2000 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This order states that the contract will stand automatically terminated on the expiry of the extended period. Subsequently, on 6.12.1993 the petitioner was given appointment on purely ad hoc and contractual basis for a period not extending beyond three years unlessterminated earlier vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was thereafter interviewed...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Sardar Arvinder Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1068
B.K. Rathi, J.1. The respondents filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist which was Suit No. 3 of 1998. The suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent has been decreed by judgment dated 31.5.2001 by Additional District Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad). Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. 2. The only point pressed before me by Sri Avinash Swaroop, learned counsel for the revisionist is that the tenancy was for a fixed period ; that the notice of termination of tenancy was served and the suit has been filed before the expiry of the said period : that, therefore, the notice of termination of tenancy is illegal and the suit is premature.3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. A registered lease deed was executed between the parties on 20.12.1983, which is Annexure-1 to the affidavit. However, it is also not denied that the tenancy in fact started from 10.1.1983 though this registered deed was executed on 20.1...
Rahmatullah Vs. Indra Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1142
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This revision has been preferred under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Pilibhit.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are as follows :'Seth Tharumal filed S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 1981 against the revisionist for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 22.11.1984. Against that decree, the present revisionist filed a revision in this Court and it is alleged that the same is still pending. In that revision, a conditional stay was granted staying the eviction of the revisionist from the premises in suit subject to the regular payment of rent. The revisionist deposited the rent till the year, 1988. Seth Tharumal who was the plaintiff also died in the year, 1988.'3. The present opposite parties applied for execution of the decree in the year 1992 alleging that they have succeeded the property of Seth Tharumal by registered Will dated 21.7.1985. The revisionist filed objections...
Anand Pal and Jaipal Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC85; 2002ACJ1470; 2002(2)AWC1214
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.2.1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge. Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 346 of 1994. arising out of M.A.C.T. Case No. 193 of 1986. The relevant facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are as hereunder.2. That the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as Tribunal'), passed an ex parte order on 13.11.1992 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 193 of 1986. The petitioners' case is that they were never served with any notice from the Tribunal, nor. In fact, they had any knowledge of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal and as such, they could not put in appearance and the proceedings before the Tribunal resulted into the ex parte award, referred to above. The petitioners further contended that it is for the first time on 15....
Smt. Rekha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002All358; (2002)2UPLBEC1426
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the recovery certificate dated 27-12-2001 issued against the petitioner directing her to deposit Rs. 42.900/-.2. The petitioner claims to be a principal of an unaided institution known as G. Sahal Vidyalaya, Koila Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The State Government gives scholarship to Scheduled Caste students who are studying even in the unaided institutions. A report was received that a substantial amount of money had been withdrawn by the alleged managers and principals of the institutions, which were actually not in existence, by submitting forged and fictitious documents showing disbursement of scholarship to Scheduled Caste students. An enquiry was conducted and then it was found between 1997-98 and 1999-2000 a sum of Rs. 1,75,32,660/- (Rs. One crore seventy five lakhs thirty two thousand six hundred and sixty) had been withdrawn by the managers and principals of such institutions which were not...
Prashant Khurana Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2219
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order dated 23-10-2000 passed under the Cofeposa which is said to have been served on the petitioner on 6-7-2001 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. A perusal of the grounds of detention which has been annexed to the detention order shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that on 4-3-2000 at about 1 a.m. the Custom and Revenue authorities detained four persons including the petitioner travelling in the down train the Gorakhpur railway station. The petitioner and his associates on questioning accepted that they were secretly carrying foreign currency. They were brought to the office of the Reve-nue Intelligence Department, Gorakhpur where these persons took out two bundles of foreign currency each from their person and placed them before the authorities. This consisted of about 42,000 American dollars. These persons stated that they were ...
R.K. Gupta Vs. Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan N ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC772; [2002(95)FLR497]
M. Katju, J,1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of transfer dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to this petition) and the relieving order dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition).2. The petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer at Panki Thermal Power Station, Panki, Kanpur, under the U. P. State Electricity Board. The U. P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. trifurcated the Board into three Corporations, namely, U. P. Power Corporation Limited, U. P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and U. P. Rajya Jal Vidyut Utpadan Nigam. A Transfer Scheme, 2000 was framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the said Act, photostat copy of the relevant part of the Transfer Scheme is Annexure-5 to the petition. Clause 6 (6) of the Transfer Scheme states that initially the personnel of the Board shall continue on provisional basis in the place where they were posted on the date of the transfer subject to certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, the U. P. Power C...
Sahngoo Ram Arya Vs. Chief Secretary, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC902; (2002)2UPLBEC1237
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orderdated 13.9.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.2. The brief necessary facts ascontained in the writ petition are thatthe petitioner Joined the service of thedepartment of Minor Irrigation of theU. P. Government as AssistantEngineer in December. 1980 and waspromoted to the rank of ExecutiveEngineer vide order dated 11.9.1989and thereafter he was also given theofficiating charge on the post ofSuperintending Engineer, JhansiCircle. It has been stated that regularpromotion of the petitioner to thepost of Superintending Engineerunder the reserved quota fell due, andas he was the senior most ExecutiveEngineer under the reserved quota.negotiations were started at theinstance of the Minister concernedbut as the petitioner did not agree, hewas subjected to harassment by wayof transfer, suspension, withdrawal...
Ramesh Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC948
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.11.1991 passed by the respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and the judgment and order dated 21.1.1985 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in the proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. (for short 'the Act').3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, as unfolded by the material on the record, are that it was on 18.12.1979 that respondent No. 3. Vireshwar Kumar Pandey filed an application under Section 41 of the Act before respondent No. 2 complaining that the petitioners have demolished northern boundary of his plot No. 1997. (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute'), measuring two bighas two biswas and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »