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.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1857
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. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank which is a public sector undertaking against the appellate order dated 23.4.1992 passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as against the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 7.2.1992. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that in view of the provisions of Section 21 (8) which is reproduced below, the petitioner being a public sector undertaking is immune from facing the application by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) (b) on the ground that it will be open to the landlord to apply for enhancement of the rent on the principles laid down in Sub-section (8) of Section 21.'21 (8) Nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State G...
Shri Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2154; (2002)3UPLBEC2254
Vineet Saran, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him the pension of freedom fighter since 6th August, 1975, under the provisions of 'Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron Ko Diya Jane Wala Anudan Tatha Swatantrata Sangram Pension Sambandhi Niyamawali, 1975' (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1975). It is alleged that the petitioner is about 86 years of age and had participated in the freedom movement of the country along with Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi and also took part in the 'Quit India Movement'. It is alleged that the petitioner was declared 'farar' but was not actually arrested. Further, he alleges that in 1989, he was given a 'samman patra' the District Freedom Fighters Organization, Ballia. Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that on 3.3.1993, he applied to the Slate Government for sanction of pension as a freedom fighter under the Rules of 1975. In this...
Ram Pratap and ors. Vs. Hari Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1278
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. 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 9.8.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, 'the Act'. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Khata No. 521 consisting of 15 gatas, of village Naroya, district Mirzapur. (for short 'the land in dispute') measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas was recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 in the basic year. Initially, an objection was filed by Ram Roop, father of Lalchoo, respondent No. 2, regarding the land in dispute but the same was got dismissed. Subsequently, two objections were filed, one by Sita Ram son of Raghunandan and other by Sheo Lochan son of Ganga, predecessor in interest of the petitioners, who claim...
Rajendra Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1273; [2002(95)FLR71]; (2002)IIILLJ712All
M. Katju and R. Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. Petitioner is the District Agriculture Officer and he has challenged the impugned order dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by which his administrative and financial powers have been taken away from him and transferred to some other officer. 3. In our opinion, an order withdrawing administrative and financial powers does not cause any prejudice to the employee, rather it benefits the employee by reducing his burden of work. There is no allegationthat the petitioner is not getting salary, allowance and perquisites or that they have been reduced in any manner. It is the employer's choice to take work or not to take work from an employee. If salary and allowances are paid to an employee without taking work from him or lesser work, he surely cannot complain, rather he should be thankful to the employer, who is giving full salary, allowance and perquisites without taking wo...
Capt. Satendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1293; [2002(93)FLR555]
M. Katju and R. Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned senior counsel, Sri V. Budhwar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.9.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the Army. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 4,11.2001 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). 3. The petitioner was a Captain in the Indian Army and during his service, he received a show cause notice dated 11.9.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). By this impugned notice, he was asked to show cause why his service be not terminated orsubmit his voluntary retirement under Rule 13 (A) of the Army Rules. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 has sent another show cause notice dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner was asked to submit papers either for retirement or resignation. The petitioner s...
Committee of Management of Adarsh Shree Vishwanath Gurukul Sanskrit Ma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1382; (2002)2UPLBEC1042
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Shri Vishwanath Gurukul Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya is a registered society.!t is running Adarsha Shri Vishwanth Gurukul Sanskrit Mahavldyalaya thereinafter called the Institution). It appears that disputes about the Management are going on and cases are pending before the Civil Judge as well as in writ petitions before this Court. Once the matter also went up to the Supreme Court but petitioner No. 1 continued to function as Mahant and has been performing the duty of the President of the society managing the institution.2. On 17.1.2002, the Management of the society was reconstituted when petitioner No. 2 was appointed as its Manager. The Vice Chancellor recognised petitioner No. 1 as President of the Committee of Management on 1.2.2002.3. It appears that somecomplaints were made againstrespondent No. 3. the Principal of theInstitution. The Committee ofManagement issued a show causenotice to respondent No. 3. whosubmitted his reply. The Committeeof Management suspendedr...
Siddharth Kumar Vs. Xith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1557
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was dismissed by me vide order dated 7.3.2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition. 2. Petitioner who is a tenant filed this writ petition against the order of the revislonal court whereby the Revisional Court has confirmed the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court. Allahabad. 3. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that it is an admitted case of the petitioner who is tenant of the respondent No. 3 landlord of the accommodation in question. A suit was filed after determining the tenancy by a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and for the relief of eviction. The defence taken by the petitioner-tenant was that Rs. 30 per month was the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord and there was no agreement that water tax shall be payable by the tenant. Apart from above, the tenant has also tak...
Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1199; (2002)2UPLBEC1113
M. Katju and R. Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Despite order dated 25.7.2001, no counter-affidavit has been filed.3. The petitioner has been selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission for appointment as a Lecturer in Agricultural Botany at Raja Mahendra Pratap Post Graduate College. Narson, Roorkee. which is how in Uttaranchal State. Since the Government of Uttaranchal has refused to give appointment (vide para 14 to the writ petition) in our opinion, the petitioner should be adjusted in a degree college in U. P.4. It has been stated in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that the management of K.V.P.G. College, Masra, Meerut, has issued a certificate of no objection to the petitioner for being recommended and appointed at K.V.P.G. College, Masra, Meerut. Hence, we direct that if a vacancy is still existing on the post of Lecturer in Agricultural Botany in K.V.P.G. College, Masra, Meerut, the petitioner should be given appointment there. If no vacan...
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1223; [2002(94)FLR639]; (2002)2UPLBEC1021
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, employer-petitioner M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. have challenged the reference made by the State of U. P., dated 14.7.1995, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said reference made by the State of U. P., employer filed present writ petition before this Court in which this Court vide its order dated 10.11.1995 has stayed further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid reference, thus the proceedings before the labour court were stayed.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A point has been taken that since there is a reference, of course a case was registered by the labour court being Adjudication Case No. 189 of 1975 to the effect 'Whether the termination of the services of workman Hanshraj Watauiali, son of Sri Ramlal Verma. Workshop Supervisor by the employer w.e.f. 13.9.1974 wasjustified or not, if not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?' From the averme...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1582; 2002(2)AWC1247
Vineet Saran, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge. Bareilly in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 575 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 along with 9% interest in favour of the claimants respondent Nos. 1 to 5.2. Briefly, the facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that on 17.9.1998 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased Ashok Pal Singh was going on his cycle, a truck No. U. P. 25/7419, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, hit the cycle of the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased received fatal injuries. It was further stated that after hitting the cycle, the truck got disbalanced and dashed against another truck which was parked by the side, and thereafter it hit a transformer. The claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who are the widow, three minor children and mother of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »