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.
Ram Murti Tripathi Vs. Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Var ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1482; (2002)2UPLBEC1370
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.M. Sahai and Sri Anil Tewari for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.2. The controversy in this case is as to, who is entitled to officiate as Principal of Rama Nand Peeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Badrika Ashram Karn Ghanta, Varanasi, which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi.3. Statutes 18.14 and 18.15 of the First Statutes of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya are extracted below :'18.14. All disputes regarding seniority of teachers (other than the Principal) of the same college, shall be decided by the Principal of the college, who shall give reasons for the decision. Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the Principal may prefer an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor within 60 days from the date of communication of such decision to the teacher concerned. If the Vice-Chancellor disagrees from the Principal, he shall give reasons for such disagreement.18.15. All disputes regarding seniority of Principals ...
Shafat Ullah Vs. Commissioner, Varanasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1483
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 21.9.2001 and 23.1.2001 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the petition).3. The petitioner was Law Officer in the service of the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. He was charge-sheeted vide Annexure-5 to the petition and additional charge-sheet vide Annexure-8 to the petition. He gave a reply to the same dated 29.11.1996 and 2.12.1996 vide Annexure-9 to the petition.4. In paragraph 15, it is stated that thereafter, no enquiry took place and petitioner was never informed any date of the enquiry and no witness was examined in his presence. No documents were produced before the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the appellant and hewas not given opportunity to rebut any document against him. Instead, suddenly a letter dated 21.8.1997 was sent by the Enquiry Officer along with his report. Copy of the same is Annexure-10 to the petition. The pet...
Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC548; 2002(2)AWC1556; [2002(93)FLR911]; (2002)2UPLBEC1368
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks, 2. Issue notice to newly impleaded respondent No. 3 returnable at an early date. 3. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act should only be a person of a legal background like a lawyer or a retired Judge. Although Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923. states that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, but we are of the opinion that after the Constitution has come into force in 1950, Section 20 of the Act must be read in the light of Article 50 of the Constitution which directs that there shall be separation between the Executive and the Judiciary. Since the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is to decide Judicial disputes, we are of the opinion that the State Government can only appoint a person who has a legal background. This i...
Habibur Rehman Vs. Additional Judge Small Causes/Prescribed Authority, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2062a
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by me on 8th April, 2002, for reasons to be recorded later on. Here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act') against the tenant-respondent No. 2. This application was allowed ex parte by the prescribed authority vide its order dated 4th June, 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 4th June, 1999, passed in P.A. Case No. 19 of 1994, which has been registered as Misc. P.A. Case No. 2 of 1999. The aforesaid application was allowed and the case was restored to its Original number on the payment of Rs. 150 as cost, vide order dated 15th October, 1999. The petitioner-lan...
Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. District Judge, Unnao and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2069
R.K. Dash, J. 1. I must first express my displeasure of the way the District Judge, Unnao, has dealt with the case and despite the Court's observation/direction, rejected the petitioner's application for appointment in a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated thus : 'Shiv Prasad while working a 'Pradhan Pratilipik' in the Office of the District Judge, Unnao died of heart attack on 18.6.1994 leaving behind his wife, five daughters and only son, the petitioner herein. The petitioner was then a minor and prosecuting his studies. After he became major, he moved an application on 28.4.1999 to provide employment on compassionate ground. In the supplementary-affidavit he has asserted that besides a small house, he does not own and possess any other immovable property and the family pension is the only sourcefor sustenance of the family consisting of him, his mother and two unmarried sisters. The District Judge w...
Dubbar and Babu Lal Vs. 1st Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2995
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.1988 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, setting aside the order dated 15.5.1986, deciding the issue No. 3. 2. Suit No. 96 of 1983 was filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 1.1.1985, executed by Jagman in favour of Sumer relating to plot Nos. 142 and 245 situated in village Nibada, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad, Azamgarh. 3. After completing the pleadings of the parties, issue No. 3 was framed relating to jurisdiction of the civil court. By the order dated 15.5.1986. trial court decided issue No. 3 that civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The defendant preferred a revision before the District Judge, which was transferred for disposal before 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. 5. During the pendency of the revision, the defendant No. 2 died on 4.11.1986. An application 13 Ka-2 was filed for bringing his heirs and legal representatives on recor...
V.P. Singh Vs. Addl. D.i.G.P./Commandant Crpf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2263
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Ray appearing for the respondent.2. This is a review application to review the judgment dated 7.3.2002 by which the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned removal order. The petitioner has filed this review application contending that under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules no appeal lie hence the judgment of this Court dated 7.8.2002 be reviewed. Sri H.P. Misra, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was under, training his case is covered by Rule 28(b) (3) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which provides :'28. (b) No appeal shall lie against an order by the competent authority inflicting any of the punishments mentioned in-- (1) serial Nos. 5 to 8 of the Table in rule. (2) Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13. (3) against an order discharging a recruit before the termination of his period of training.' ...
Vinayak Tea Co. Vs. Kothari Products Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1448
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order passed by the court below restraining the appellant from infringing in the plaintiff's registered trade mark bearing registration Nos. 417443, 453959 and 453009 in respect of 'parag' and further restraining it from using such mark.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit against the appellant for permanent injunction restraining It from infringing the plaintiffs trade mark and for passing off its goods under the trade mark, 'parag' as the goods of the plaintiff with the allegations that the respondent company is manufacturing and selling pan masala and mouth freshener like Sada Pan Masala. Gutkha and chewing tobacco. The trade mark 'parag' is registered under the registration No. 417443 dated 10.2.1984 and 'pan parag' is registered on 12.5.1986 bearing registration No. 453959 and 'pan masala with zarda' bearing registration No. 453009. It has further applied for registration in the name of trade mark 'pan masala mawa'. T...
Smt. Suloch Rani JaIn and ors. Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge, S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1467
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of thiswrit petition, the petitioners haveprayed for issuing a writ of certiorariquashing the orders dated 13.1.1998and 26.10.1994 passed byrespondent .No. 1 and the RentControl and Eviction Officer,Saharanpur, respectively contained inAnnexures-7 and 1 of the writpetition.2. The dispute relates to house No. 49/13, Gatta Mill Colony, Saharanpur, which was in the tenancy of Pyarey Lal Jain. Respondent No. 2 Hulash Rai Singhal made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the said house stating therein that the house had fallen vacant on account of the tenant having ceased to occupy the same as he has removed his effects therefrom and had shifted to Faridabad with his son and other family members. On this application, a report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who vide his report dated 18.10.1993 reported that the tenant Sri Pyarey Lal Jain has permanently shifted to Faridabad and the house in question was open fo...
Hari Om Gupta Vs. Iind Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1708
Anjanl Kumar, J. 1. After the notice has been held to be sufficient, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is finally disposed of, since it is fairly old petition of the year 1984. 2. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority, passed under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. whereby the appellate authority has reversed the findings and conclusion arrived at by the prescribed authority on an application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. The petitioner-landlord filed the aforesaid application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that since he is living in a tenanted house, which is in dispute in the present writ petition under the new Act and the house in which the petitioner is residing on a tenancy, has made efforts to get him evicted on the ground that the petitioner has his own house ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »