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.
Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal Alias Guddu Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2047; [2002(94)FLR201]; (2002)IIILLJ369All; (2002)2UPLBEC1394
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the orders dated 18.10.1995 and 31.7.1996, passed by the respondent No. 1, Annexures-3 and 5 to the writ petition, respectively.2. The fact emerges in the present case is 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 Sections 16 and 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the employer preferred an application dated 21.12.1995 for recalling the ex parte order dated 18.10.1995. The respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 31.7.1996 rejected the said application of the employer on the ground of limitation. Thereafteremployer preferred an appeal as contemplated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure before the respondent No. 2 praying therein that the order dated 18.10....
Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. Prescribed Authority, Labour Court and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2033; (2002)2UPLBEC1389
Anjani Kumar, J. This writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5696 of 1998 filed by the employer-petitioners against the award of the Labour Court, IV, Kanpur Nagar dated 13.1.1997, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case No. 75 of 1994, arising out of the following reference made by the State Government vide its order dated 7.10-1994 for adjudication before the labour court. 'Whether the termination of workman Sri Dinesh Singh, son of Sri Ram Autar Singh, watchman by the employer w.e.f. 20.9.1992 was legal and valid? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date etc.'2. Notices were issued to the parties concerned and the parties have filed their written statementsand adduced their evidence. Before the labour court after the exchange of the pleadings of the parties, the stand of the respondent-workman was that he was appointed with the employer on 1.3.1990 on the post of watchman and he has worked continuously from the date of appointment...
Asad Ahmad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2198; (2002)2UPLBEC1951
M. Katju, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3.2.1993 Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. 3. It has been alleged in para 1 of the writ petition that the Land Management Committee of the village concerned passed a resolution after prior approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 2.8.1991, allotting certain plots to the petitioners. The certificates have been given by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee to this effect, copies of which are Annexures-1 to 10 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 3 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been cultivating the land since 1991. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the allotment had been cancelled on 3.2.1993 vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 11 of the writ petition that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing. In para 1...
Classic Rugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas736(All); [2004]52SCL220(All)
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. The petitioner-company having its registered office at New Delhi and in respect of which winding up proceeding is pending in Delhi High Court, has moved this writ petition challenging the notice dated February 28, 2002, directing the petitioner-company to deposit the amount of Rs. 21,34,593 as trade tax due against the writ petitioners since 1994-95 to 1996-97.2. The contention of Sri Manish Goyal learned counsel for petitioner is that there is automatic suspension of the proceedings under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and as such complying with the said Section 22, the notice being in the nature of a distress proceeding, the notice should be stayed. It is, however, on record that all stages of inquiry and other proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction are over and learned counsel for petitioner also cannot dispute that the matter has been sent to the High...
Asha Dass (Smt.) Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1592
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Heard Shri Prakash Padia learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shirish Chandra learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade on 8.5.1981 which was approved on 27.4.1981 whereafter she has been working since then. She claims promotion to C.T. Grade as per Regulation 7(2) contained in Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prior to its deletion on 19.8.1992 and thereafter to L.T. Grade in terms of Government Order dated 30.11.1989 2.10.1989 (hereinafter referred to as the G.O.). The qualification of the petitioner is M.A., B.Ed.3. Regulation 7(2) of Regulations framed under Chapter II of the Act has been deleted w.e.f., 19.8.1992. The question is as to whether a person who has become entitled for being promoted to C.T. Grade on fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein, pr...
Keshav Prasad Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1485; [2002(94)FLR407]; (2002)3UPLBEC2108
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard Sri A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 16.2.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).3. We have carefully examined the impugned order and find no illegality in the same.4. The petitioner was refused to be promoted from Class III to Class 11 in the educational service. He was charge-sheeted and his result was kept in a sealed cover and subsequently, he was punished and was not promoted for the recruitment year 1994-1995.5. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted for the recruitment year 1998-99. We see no illegality in the impugned order, since thepetitioner has been found guilty and was not found fit for promotion at that time. The criteria of promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Since he was found guilty of misconduct in an enquiry, he was rightly not found fit at that time.6. The petition is dismi...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1523
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.10.1994, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr, has decided an application purporting to be an application under Section 16 (9) read with Rule 22 (f) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for fixing the standard rent of the building on the annual value of Rs. 2.58,000. Prior to the present application filed by the petitioner, he had filed an application also in the year 1993. The District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr has already fixed the rent at Rs. 100 per month by order dated 31.5.1993. This order was subject-matter of challenge in the Writ Petition No. 39261 of 1993 which has been dismissed today by me on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client does not want to press this writ petition. 2. Now coming to facts of the present case which are hereunder : 'Admittedly, the tenancy of the petitioner was coming down since before 1978 and prior to that...
Ali Dad Khan and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1560
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a relief in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.4.1987. 28.4.1988 and 26.1 1.2001 passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively, copies whereof are filed and marked as Annexures-4. 5 and 12 to the writ petition.2. Although the present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. I propose to decide it finally on merits at admission stage.3. It is disturbing to note that litigation between the petitioners and contesting respondents relating to land in dispute is pending consideration from 1969. Even after expiry of about 33 years, dispute relating to land in dispute between the parties could not be finally decided. In these circumstances Voltaire had aptly said, 'he was ruined twice in his life, once when he lost a law suit and once when he won a law suit'.4. It is further noticed that present dispute between the parties came u...
Mishri Lal Gupta and anr. Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aliga ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1558
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.12.1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh. exercising the power of the District Magistrate delegated by virtue of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioners filed an application purporting to be an application under Rule 10 (6) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the allegations that the petitioner No. 1 was carrying on the business in the shop in question which is closed for the last 3 years. He is now intending to take petitioner No. 2 as partner in the firm and this application has been moved for the permission to admit a person as a partner as provided under Rule 10 (6) of the Rules famed under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.3. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under :'(6) A person who is deemed to have ceased to ...
Shambhu Dayal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1686; 2002(147)ELT35(All); [2002(94)FLR878]; (2002)2UPLBEC1501
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard Sri V. B. Singh and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for Union of India. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri Navin Sinha and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. We have also heard Mr. Chandra Shekharan, learned counsel who has filed an affidavit on behalf of Smt. Lakshmi Swaminathan. Vice-Chairman (Judl.) Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.2. The point raised in this case is a matter of great moment. The question Involved is whether the Presiding Judge of the Central Administrative Tribunal in India can be a member from the purely executive wing of the State. We are of the opinion that he cannot, and that Is why we are giving a detailed judgment as this matter is of great legal and constitutional importance in our country.3. The petitioner has challenged the panel prepared for the posts of Vice-Chairman in various branches of the Central ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »