Allahabad Court March 2002 Judgments
H.K. Oberai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1547; [2002(93)FLR706]; (2002)2UPLBEC1376
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. C. Tripathi for the respondent.2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned order dated 31.8.1994, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 26.8.1995. Annexure-22 to the writ petition. The petitioner was an officer in the Central Bank and he was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry in which he was given opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which has been rejected by the order dated 26.8.1995. Hence this petition.3. In the appellate order, there is a finding of fact that the petitioner wanted to help a party by mala fide manner. He removed the manifold No. 89448 of Rs. 2.51,857 and did not debit the same to the party's account. This was only unearthed from I.B.R. reconciliation. These are findings of fact and we cannot Interfere with them in writ jurisdiction. A Bank operates on the public confidence and the employees of the Bank have to maintain the highest stand...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Chand Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1887; (2002)2UPLBEC1525
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.6.1998 of the State Government by which Sri Chandra Deo Ram, respondent No. 4, was appointed as Head of Department of Composition in the Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad.2. There is an institute known as the Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). It imparts a three-years course for award of a diploma in printing technology. The Institute is controlled, financed and managed by the State Government and is governed by U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962. The service conditions of the staff of the Institute are governed by the U. P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Services Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), which have been made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power conferred by the proviso of Article 309 to the Constitution.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer Karmik, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2135; (2002)2UPLBEC1511
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. The moot point for consideration in this bunchof writ petitions is whether the employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam are entitled to enhancement in their age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, at par with U.P. Government servants by virtue of Government Order No. 1098/Ka-1/2001, Lucknow dated 28th November, 2001.2. The background of the controversy has its roots in the enactment of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The petitioners were employees in the Local Self Government Engineering Department of the U.P. Government. On enactment of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, (U.P. Act No. 43 of 1975) as amended by U.P. Acts No. 10 of 1978, U.P. Act No. 28 of 1978 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1984, the U.P. Jal Nigam came into existence and by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the Nigam is body corporate.3. The contentions of the petitioners are that :(i) Under Section 37 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, the service conditions of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturvedi Steel Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1127
G. P. Mathur and Vineet Saran, JJ. 1. This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (a), Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed challenging the order dated 4.2.2002 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, by which it was held that the Court at Lucknow alone had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court at Jhansi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the same.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondent claiming the following reliefs :(a) The a decree for declaration to this effect that, both the Bank Guarantees Nos. 84/4 and 84/5 dated 13.8.1984 and 18.10.1984, respectively given in Tender Contract No. 18-84-85 and 19-84-85 Steel Cell department of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by Defendant No. 4 are not enforceable, as there is no default on the part of the plaintiff and no amount is due to the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, be ordered to be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. (b) That the Defendant No. 4 be restrained by means...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2169
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Central Government dated 2nd February, 2001. The Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a petition has been admitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal it cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. This argument is not correct. It is the duty of a Court to dismiss a petition on the ground of limitation unless the delay has been condoned. Hence, unless an application has been filed for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunal and such application is allowed, the Tribunal has to dismiss the petition on the ground of limitation even if it had earlier admitted the petition. Merely because the Tribunal has admitted a petit...
Tag this Judgment!Lallan Rai Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)209; 2002CriLJ2911
ORDER1. From the Writ Petition and the Counter Affidavit it appears that the petitioner, who is an advocate of this Court but is in Naini Jail since 4-12-2000 being main accused in Case Crime No. 439 of 1999 P.S. Naini District Allahabad under Sections 302, 286, 504 & 506 I.P.C., has come up with a number of prayers in this writ petition resorting to his constitutional remedies.2. His main prayers are:-i) To quash the Report of the Investigating Officer, C.B.C.I.D.ii) To get the matter investigated afresh through an independent agency other than C.B.C.I.D., Allahabad Sector.iii) To command the Respondents to release him on bail for his medical check up and treatment as per advice of the doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Post- Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow as well as report of the doctors from the United States of America.3. Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, confines this writ petition only to the relief No.(iii) aforementioned by highlighti...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2915
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, and order dated 30-4-1981 passed by Sri B.B. Khare the then IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1981 convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case in brief was that Kamta the deceased of this case was real brother of Gulzari Lal P.W. 1 and Gokaran P.W.2. It is said that in the year 1977 a theft was committed in the house of Kamta deceased. The theft case proceeded against Sita Ram appellant and was pending in the Court when the present incident occurred. It is further alleged that only a few days before the murder of Kamta, the present appellant extended a threat to deceased Kamta that if he gave evidence against him in the theft case, he would kill him. He also offered a sum of Rs. 1000/- if the deceased agreed not to give evidence against him but the deceased did not accede to this offer of the appellant.3. It is alleged tha...
Tag this Judgment!Balram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1246; (2002)2UPLBEC1008
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioner took a loan from the State Bank of India under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana in respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued.2. In our opinion, writ petitions relating to recovery of loans should not ordinarily be entertained by the High Court and instead, the party should approach the civil court in a civil suit challenging the said recovery because such matters usually involve questions of fact for which this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum. We may clarify that in such a civil suit challenging the recovery, a temporary injunction can also be granted. The Amendment to Order XXXIX, Rule 2, C.P.C., by which a proviso has been inserted in U. P. State in Clause (g) that the Court cannot stay proceedings for the recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue 'unless adequate security is furnished'. This mea...
Tag this Judgment!Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1250
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks, List thereafter.2. The petitioner has a sugar factory at Saharanpur.The petitioner has challenged the restrictions on free sale sugar. In our prima facie opinion, these restrictions are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In this connection, we may explain the general scheme regarding sale of sugar. The sugar produced by sugar factories is generally divided into two categories-levy sugar and free sale sugar. The levy sugar has to be compulsorily sold by the manufacturer to the Government or to the nominee of the Government at the price fixed by the Government. Such sugar is then distributed to the poor people of the country through the public distribution system (Fair Price Shops etc.). The idea is that the poor people could get sugar at a cheap price. However, this often entails a loss to the manufacturer because the levy sugar is sold to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Buckeye Batteries (P.) Ltd. (In Liq.) on Behalf of Sri Khalid Mukhtar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1458; (2002)2UPLBEC1379
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This application has been filed by Sri Khalid Mukhtar son of Late Mukhtar Hamid Ali, resident of Mukhtar Manzil, Civil Lines, Aligarh under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the matter of M/s. Buckeye Batteries Private Limited (in liq.) praying to quash the recovery certificate dated 29.3.2001, issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and investment Corporation of U. P. Limited (P.I.C.U.P.) to Collector, Aligarh : and to stay proceedings against applicant as a guarantor of financial assistance granted to the company (in liq.).2. By notice dated 29.3.2001, the Court did not find any ground to grant interim relief and directed the petitioner to file a supplementary-affidavit annexing a copy of Contract of Guarantee. The required supplementary affidavit along with bond of guarantee executed in favour of P.I.C.U.P. in Legal Form No. 2 was filed on 12.4.2001. On the same date, the Court granted an interim protection to the effect that no coercive action shall take place a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »