Allahabad Court March 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.
Mansoor Ahmad Vs. Industrial Tribunal (i), U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1252; [2002(93)FLR699]; (2002)2UPLBEC1522
R. B. Misra, J. 1. In the writ petition, prayer has been made to quash the award dated 27.6.1992 (Annexure-6) and declare the termination dated 8,9.1986 as illegal and to treat the petitioner in continuous service and to make full payment with back wages and other benefits admissible under law since 8.9.1986.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.3. The relevant facts, necessary for adjudication of the case are that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P.. Allahabad in exercise of his power vested under notification No. 2512 (HD/36-2-155 (SM)/90 dated 29.8.1990, has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal, for adjudication under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (called 'Act') on 4.4.1991. 'Whether the termination of workman Sri Mansoor Ahmad from 8.9.1986 by the employer is legally valid and if not, then the details of benefit/relief, which he is entitled to.'4. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on the p...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1286; [2002(93)FLR410]; (2002)2UPLBEC1089
R.B. Misra, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the orderdated 11.2.1991 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). Heard Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that before creation of the Corporation of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 1.6.1972, the transport services in the State of U.P. were being controlled by the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, a department of the State Government and the employees working therein were governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the Government servants. The erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways consisted of three major branches for Operational Branch, (b) Maintenance and Construction Branch and (c) Store Branch. The Central Workshop, Kanpur, was started at the creation of the Roadways Organisation in 1948 and its employees were Government ser...
Krishna Kumar Vs. Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1289
R.B. Misra, J. 1. By this writ petition, the order dated 24.10.1981 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and order dated 26.10.1985 have been challenged. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the private respondents.3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a revision on 5.1.1982 against the judgment dated 24.10.1981 passed by Vth Additional Munsif, Pilibhit in Case No. 39 of 1981 arising out of Original Suit No. 323 of 1960, Sri Krishna Kumar v. Ram Kumar and Ors. Original Suit No. 323 of 1968 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.10.1981 and the application for setting aside the order of the dismissal of the suit was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.10.1981. One Om Kumar, opposite party in the revision application had died on 18.9.1981. i.e., prior to the filinig of the revision application on 5.1.1982 and the application paper No. 19A was moved on 17.5.1982 with the allegatio...
Vinod Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1297; (2002)2UPLBEC1057
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for modification of the advertisement Issued by the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad (Annexure-1 to the petition) and for a direction that there should be 3% reservation for physically handicapped candidates for selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission under U. P. Act No. 4 of the 1993 as amended by U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 and to consider the petitioner as a physically handicapped candidate for recruitment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service against 3% reservation for physically handicapped candidates.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the affidavits.3. The Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad, published an advertisement in the Newspaper 'Aaj' on 8.6.2000 inviting applications for direct recruitment against 38 vacancies in the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. The relevant extract of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the petition.4. Recruitment to the U. P. Higher J...
Madhav Pandey and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1311
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena for the petitioners and Sri Gajendra Pratap appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Pleadings of the parties are complete and both the parties have agreed that the writ petition itself be finally decided.2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 21.6.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue. U. P. Lucknow. The facts of the cases as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :One Smt. Barmati wife of late Sri Jag Mohan was recorded in the khatauni of village Barbadeeh and village Baliyari with regard to certain agricultural land Smt. Barmati died and after the death of Smt. Barmati, an application for mutation of their names was moved by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 through their father Ramakant Pandey under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Another claim was made by the petitioners claiming mutation on basis of a Will. Cases were consolidated and Case No. 45/131. Ravi Sha...
Smt. Durga Vs. Election Commissioner, State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1394
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Sri Shitla Prasad Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ranvijal Singh, learned standing counsel for respondents.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for holding fresh election in two polling booth Nos. 291 and 292 in village Sisaura Kala Anshik situated in 221 Dhanapur Vidhan Sabha Constituency district Chandauli.3. In our view, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which is set out herein below :'329 (b). No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.'4. That apart, in our view, appropriate remedy is to file an election petition under Chapter II of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 thereinafter referred to as the Act). The releva...
Sanjay Kumar Misra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1486; (2002)2UPLBEC1664
R.B. Mishra, J. 1. All these three writ petitions above mentioned are being disposed of by a common judgment by consent of the partiessince identical questions of law and facts are involved. Writ Petition No. 29035 of 1999 is the leading case.By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the advertisement employment notice No. 1 of 1996 (Annexure-1) published in the Pioneer dated 1.11.1996 by Northern Railway and seeking direction by way of mandamus to the respondents to declare the result of selection held in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 1994 (Annexure-2).2. Heard Sri V.B. Singh. Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vijai Sinha for the petitioners and Sri U.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.3. Brief facts for adjudication of the writ petition are that the recruitment of constable in Railway Protection Force through Employment Notice No. 1 of 1994 was advertised and large number of candidates participated in the selection process and selection was fi...
Chandra Sekhar Tiwari Vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1545; [2002(93)FLR893]; (2002)2UPLBEC1375
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U, P. Public Services Tribunal dated 1.10.1999, Annexure-19 to the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was a police constable posted at Police Lines, Kanpur Dehat, It is alleged that he went to Ghatampur on 2.4.1989 where he drank liquor at a country liquor shop and also misbehaved with the salesman of the liquor shop, abusing and beating the salesman and breaking the glasses. The owner of the liquor shop lodged a first Information report against the petitioner regarding the incident. The Sub-Inspector posted at police station Ghatampur summoned the petitioner but the petitioner instead of going to the police station ran away. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted on 4.8.1989 but he remained absent from duty.4. A departmental enquiry was held but he did not appear on 29.8.1989 and 11.9.1989. On 22.9.1989, he requested for time to put up his defence and was given time till...
Arun Kumar Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge, Badaun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1655
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was dismissed by me vide order dated 8.3.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent Smt. Sudha Devi is admittedly the landlord of the premises which is under the tenancy of the petitioner, Arun Kumar. The respondent filed a suit after serving a notice, i.e., S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 1995 on the allegation that the petitioner-tenant has not paid the rent w.e.f. 1.2.1994 till 25.4.1995 and has not paid the arrears of rent Rs. 7.400. A notice dated 25.4.1995 was sent by the landlord through her counsel by registered post which has been received by the petitioner-tenant. It is further stated in the plaint that it has been agreed upon by the tenant at the time of letting out the shop in dispute that apart from the rent agreed : the petitioner-tenant shall be liable to pay house and water tax whatever may be im...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR337(All)
M. Katju J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated June 12, 2000, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, New Delhi.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in this appeal.3. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The question involved is about the valuation of the property in question being a residential flat at Roopam Building, 18, Worli Estate Scheme No. 52, Abdul Gaffar Road, Worli, Bombay, which is owned by the assessee and used as a guest house. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown the value of the above property at Rs. 1,55, 139 on the valuation date March 31, 1993. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer who valued the building at Rs. 2,60,73,000. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why the valuation of the property be not taken as per the valuation report. The assessee replied that the valuation has to be done under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »