Allahabad Court April 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.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation, Lucknow and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1855; (2002)3UPLBEC2170
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R. B. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The case was listed on twelve occasions and on 16.1.2001, six weeks' time was allowed with a stop order that no more time shall be allowed to file counter-affidavit. On 3.12.2001 also on humble request on behalf of the learned standing counsel, six weeks' time was allowed with another stop order that no more time would be allowed to file counter-affidavit. At this stage also, there is no instructions on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents to enable him to file the counter-affidavit. Therefore, this petition is disposed of on the material available on records. Though the counter and rejoinder-affidavits have not been exchanged, however, now with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage on the basis of material available on records and proceedings of the petition in reference to sec...
Gokul Prasad Mishra Vs. Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, Lalitpur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2106; (2002)2UPLBEC1928
R.B. Misra, J. 1. The matter called twice non-appeared on behalf of the respondents. Counter-affidavit has been filed. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of the averment made in the counter-affidavit this matter is decided finally at this stage. In this writ petition, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 16.3.1993, terminating the services of the petitioner. Heard Sri Jai Krishna Tiwari holding the brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 11.12.1975 as 'Pond Keeper' by the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Lalitpur, on temporary basis and subsequently, hewas confirmed on 1.8.1977. The services of the petitioner was governed by Uttar Pradesh Chhetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970. By order dated 1.9.1992, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet was issued to...
Satya Deo Thakur Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2199
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.1986 allowing the revision and reversing the order passed by (rial court dated 28.9.1985. 2. The opposite party No. 2 Ram Narain filed a Suit No. 798 of 1982 for partition of his 1/3rd share on the ground that after death of his father, all the three brothers have got equal share. The suit was decreed ex parte on 3.4.1982. 3. An application filed by the defendant (present petitioner) on 22.9.1984 for recalling ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C., was allowed and ex parte decree was set aside by the order dated 28.9.1985 on the ground that no notice was served to the defendant. 4. A revision preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the order passed by the trial court restoring the suit was set aside on the ground that no such application is maintainable as final decree was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the date of the final decree prepared (on 20.10.1984), ...
Prem Pal Singh Vs. Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1474; (2002)2UPLBEC1666
S.K. Singh, J.1. The challenge in this petition is the order dated 24.11.2001 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the transfer of the petitioner as Principal of Gopi Ram Paliwal inter College, Aligarh from Budhsen Prem Chandra inter College, Bulandshahr, has been cancelled.2. The petitioner happened to be a selected candidate for the post of Principal and in pursuance of his placement in Budhsen Prem Chandra inter College, Bulandshahr, the petitioner joined. It has been stated that the petitioner's functioning on that post, was satisfactory and after expiry of one-year probation period, he was confirmed as well. The dispute which is now before this Court is about the continuance of the petitioner as Principal in another college, namely, Gopi Ram Paliwal inter College. Aligarh thereinafter referred to as the college) where the petitioner came by transfer order dated 30.6.2001, which was the subject-matter of challenge of Writ Petition No. 27754 of 2...
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1571; (2002)2UPLBEC1469a
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the entire proceedings commencing from notification dated 7.7.1984 issued under Section 4(1) and the notification dated 9.7.1984 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of petitioner's land be quashed. In the alternative, it is prayed that if the aforesaid prayer is not granted, a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue and serve notice under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act and to pay compensation along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum.2. The case set-up in writ petition is that the petitioner is owner of 12 bighas and 12 biswas of land situate In village Hasanpur Bhowapur, Pargana Lone. Tehsil Dadri district Ghaziabad. A notification dated 7.7.1984 was issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was published in the Gazette on 9.7.1984. Thereafter, a declaration was mad...
Uma Shankar Mishra Vs. Sambhagiya Prashasnik Committee, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1704; [2002(93)FLR1087]; (2002)IIILLJ467All; (2002)2UPLBEC1481
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned orders dated 23.12.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and 30.7.2001 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).3. We have carefully perused the impugned orders and find no illegality in the same. The petitioner was a Secretary in a Co-operative Society and was charge-sheeted for embezzlement, etc. After enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed. His appeal has also been dismissed. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact that the petitioner committed financial embezzlement and hence we cannot Interfere in writ jurisdiction. Moreover in the order (Annexure-9), it has been recorded that the petitioner admitted this charge.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that petitioner could only be dismissed but no recovery of the embezzled amount could be made. We do not agree with ...
Ambika Prasad Srivastava Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1707
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Before the trial court, the tenant raised an objection regarding respondent No. 3 being the landlord and it was vehemently argued before the trial court that the trial court has no jurisdiction and the suit should have been filed on the regular side. The trial court has recorded a finding against the tenant on all the Issues and ultimately decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional court. The only point argued before the revistonal court is that the trial court has not considered as to whether the tenant is entitled for the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On this issue, the revisional court has gone in detail and found that in fa...
Executive Engineer, Upseb Vs. Prescribed Authority/Assistant Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1861; [2002(93)FLR913]; (2002)IIILLJ142All; (2002)2UPLBEC1456
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions since raise the common question of law, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order after hearing learned counsel for the parties.2. The fact emerges in both the cases are that the prescribed authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act have allowed the workman's application for payment of wages and compensation thereof under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by prescribed authority, the employer preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. The provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which is relevant for the purposes of wages, clearly speaks that no appeal shall lie against an order or direction Issued for payment of wages by the prescribed authority, unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under th...
Smt. Sarla Devi Vs. District Judge, Mainpuri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2000
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar, holding brief of Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.2. A Suit No. 15 of 1975 was filed by Tej Bahadur Singh, for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.1.1973 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of Ram Prasad and Birbal. Suit was dismissed on 30.7,1980. A Civil Appeal No, 164 of 1980 was preferred by plaintiff against the said decree of the trial court.3. During the pendency of the civil appeal, TeJ Bahadur Singh died. O.P. No. 2 Shamsher Bahadur Singh, the real brother of Tej Bahadur Singh filed an application for substitution claiming him as sole heir and legal representative. An application was also filed by the petitioner for substituting her in place of Tej Bahadur Singh on the basis of a Will dated 20.1.1981. The petitioner's case was that Tej Bahadur Singh executed Will in her favour who is real sister.4. The District Judge, Mainpuri, after consideri...
Jhuri Singh Vs. Ram Kumar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2067
Kamal Kishore, J. 1. This is thesecond appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1980 passed by Sri N. C. Sinha, the then learned Civil Judge, Sultanpur dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif in Regular Suit No. 256 of 1978 which was a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiffs possession over the land in suit. 2. The following question of law has been formulated by this Court at the time of admission, as given in substantial question of law 'A', which runs as under : 'Whether the court below has committed an error of law in basing his findings on the basis of the observations of the trial court with regard to his spot visit, which were not only wrong and contrary to the factual position on the spot, but also stood vitiated as no inspection note was prepared by the learned trial court nor an opportunity to file objections was afforded, the site plan prepared by the Advocate Commissione...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »