Allahabad Court March 2002 Judgments
Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1479; [2002(93)FLR710]; (2002)2UPLBEC1467
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the order of suspension and an order taking away his administrative and financial powers.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. So far as the suspension order is concerned, we have already stayed the suspension order by our interim order dated 7.1.2002 and we direct that the stay order dated 7.1.2002 will continue till the enquiry against the petitioner is complete.4. As far as the order taking away the administrative and financial power is concerned, in our opinion, such an order does not cause any prejudice to the employee, rather it is in his favour because it reduces his burden of work. In our opinion, an employer is not bound to give work to an employee as long as the employer continues to pay his full wages, allowances and perquisites. An employee is only entitled to his salary, allowances, etc and he cannot insist that he must also be given work, or that he be given complete work.5. As regards the decision of the Supreme ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kripal Vs. Collector, Banda and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1547b; (2002)2UPLBEC1371
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. The petitioner took a loan from respondent No. 2. Khadt Evam Gramodyog Board for running carpentary business and did not repay the same, hence the Impugned recovery has been Issued. The petitioner has prayed for fixing easy Installments. We have held in several decisions that the High Court cannot fix installments under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court can only Interfere in the matter where there is error of law apparent on the face of the record. Fixing of installments is re-scheduling the impugned recovery and that cannot be done by the High Court. The petitioner' may approach the respondent No. 2 for this purpose.2. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Khalid Mukhtar Vs. Buckeye Batteries Private Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas70(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This application has been filed by Sri Khalid Mukhtar son of the late Mukhtar Hamid Ali, resident of Mukhtar Manzil, Civil Lines, Aligarh, under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), in the matter of Buckeye Batteries (P.) Ltd. (in liquidation) praying to quash the recovery certificate dated March 29, 2001, issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd. (PICUP) to the Collector, Aligarh ; and to stay proceedings against the applicant as a guarantor of financial assistance granted to the company (in liquidation).2. By notice dated March 29, 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 the contract of guarantee. The required supplementary along with the bond of guarantee executed in favour of PICUP in Legal Form No. 2 was filed on April 12, 2001. On the same date, the court granted an interim protection to the effect that no coerc...
Tag this Judgment!Jabbar Tailor Master Vs. District Judge, Varanasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1705
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was heard by me and allowed on 18.3.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The revisional order dated 25.5.2001 was quashed and revisional court was directed to decide the Revision No. 299 of 2001 within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. Now, here are the reasons for allowing the writ petition.2. Petitioner-tenant of the accommodation in dispute filed a Revision No. 299 of 2001 against the decree of the trial court passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 65 of 1999. The revisional court rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by time.3. Admittedly, the trial court decreed the suit on 3.4.2001 whereasthe petitioner filed the present revision on 10.5.2001. The limitation for filing the revision was up to 2.5.2001 but the same was filed on 10.5.2001. As stated above, there was delay of hardly 7 or 8 days in filing the revision. The explanation given by the petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!Nazeer Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3576
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Surendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.2. There are in total four accused persons namely, Insaf Ali, Jainullah, Lallah Shah and Abid Hasan, facing trial under Section 135 of the Customs and Excise Act. A mini truck bearing registration No. D.B.L. 6353 carrying goods of foreign origin was detained and the truck along with the goods were seized. The Driver and other persons present in the vehicle gave their statements to the Customs Officer, which have been brought in evidence and marked as exhibits through P.W. 1. It would appear from the order of the learned trial Court (Annexure 2) that petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid truck and the seized goods were loaded in the said truck from his house.3. On a petition being moved by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C., learned Court below by order dated 23-4-1999 arraigned the petitioner as an...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswati Joshi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1242; (2002)2UPLBEC1221
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioner Js the widow of late Sri K. N. Joshi, who retired as Nagar Abhiyanta. Jalkal on 31.3.1977. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay family pension and dearness allowance to her in terms of the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1996 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15309 of 1994, Moti Lal Agrawal and others v. State of U. P., and others, and further to quash the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 on her representation, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. The facts of this case are that petitioner's husband late Sri K. N.Joshi was initially appointed in 1958 as Assistant Water Works Engineer in Nagar Mahapalika. Varanasi (now Nagar Nigam, Varanasi). He was promoted as Nagar Abhiyanta. Jalkal and retired on 31.3.1977. The pay scale of late K. N, Joshi at the time of retirement was Rs. 500-50-75-EB-1,000-EB-50-1250-150-50-1,400. The aforesaid pay scale for the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1274
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. A public auction for grant of fisheries rights for ten years was held on 10th September. 1990 in respect of a pond in old Khasra Nos. 1439. 1617 and 1624 (area about 6 acres) situate in village Khajuriwala, District Saharanpur. Sri Shyam Sunder (the contesting respondent) was successful bidder in this auction. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur (S.D.M.) granted approval to this auction on 16th November, 1990 but the registered lease deed in respect of the same was executed on 21st April. 1994. In this lease deed, it was mentioned that it was for a period of ten years from 16.11.1990 to 15.11.2000. 2. The contesting respondent filed an application dated 6.12.1995 for extension of this period on the ground that he was not permitted to exercise fishers rights till execution of the lease deed and prayed that the period of the lease be extended to 20.4.2004 to make it ten years from the date of execution. This application was dismissed by theS.D.M. on 17th ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vinodani Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1299; [2002(93)FLR557]; (2002)2UPLBEC1051
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned advertisement published on 8.7.2000 Annexure-9 to the petition and for restraining the respondent No. 3, the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission from making any selection in pursuance to the said advertisement. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be allowed to continue to function as ad hoc lecturer in the institution in question.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Sanskrit in the Institution in question by order dated 10.9.1998, Annexure-2 to the petition, on emolument of Rs. 100 per lecture and maximum of Rs. 5,000 per month till 30.6.1999. The appointment letter Itself states that the appointment will come to an end on regular selection by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. Thus, the petitioner was only on honorarium at Rs. 100 per lecture. It is alleged in para 35 of the writ petition that the petitioner has taugh...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Registra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1353
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The question which requires consideration here is whether the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society get an extended lease of life in view of U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001 if its original term of three years had not expired before 24.12.2001.2. Parties have exchanged affidavits and on their request, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.3. Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd.. Gorakhpur, is an Urban Co-operative Bank. The election to elect the Committee of Management of the aforesaid Co-operative Society was held on 28.12.1998 and a Board of Directors was elected. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29.12.1998 elected the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Ram Singh, who was elected as the Chairman of Committee of Management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. Is petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the relevant time, laid down that th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radhika Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1478; [2002(93)FLR707]
M. Katju and R. Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard Sri R.N. Tripathi. learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Aradhana Chauhan for the respondents.2. The petitioner has prayed for family pension, which has been paid, and now she claims Interest due to late payment. Interest is the normal accretion on capital, and it is not a penalty or punishment. If a certain amount is payable at a certain time, then the person to whom it is paid in time would invest it and earn interest. However, if there is delay in payment, then the person who retained the money would have earned interest on the same. Hence, he has to pay not only the principal amount but also interest on the same.3. We. therefore, dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondents to pay interest on the pension, which has been paid to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when it was payable to the date of payment. The amount will be paid within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »