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.
Girija Shanker Trivedi and ors. Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Kan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1801
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This petition was heard on 5th April, 2002, When the case was taken up in the revised list, Shri G.L. Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and no one appeared for the respondent. Sri Tripathi was heard in support of the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons. 2. Petitioner who is landlord filed a suit before the Judge Small Causes Court against the respondent No. 2 under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being suit No. 92 of 1979, on the ground of arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent tenant and also on the ground that the tenant without the consent of the landlord in writing have carried out material alteration in the accommodation which diminished Its value. The trial court by its order dated 8th February, 1984, decreed the suit after recording the evidence that the respondent-tenant was in default. 3. Aggrieved by the order respondent-tenant preferred revision before the res...
Uma Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1871; (2002)2UPLBEC1356
S.R. Singh, J. 1. This bunch of 32 petitions was heard together for convenient disposal by a common judgment in view of the fact that these writ petitions raise common questions of law and are based on a common cause of action.2. A Non-Formal Education Scheme was initially introduced by the Central Government in the year 1979-80 for imparting education to children in the age group of 6 to 14 years, who either did not attend any school or who after joining left the school before completing primary education. Initially the expenses incurred in the scheme were shared by the State Government and the Central Government in the ratio of 50 : 50 but later on, it was revised to 40% : 60% and subsequently 10% : 90% in the case of girl students. The scheme was implemented in the State of U, P. under the Director of Education (Basic) U. P. It is not disputed that in order to successfully run the scheme, certain posts including the posts of supervisors were created at various levels vide Government...
Zila Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2362
Anjanl Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 5th April, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. The award is modified to the extent specified in the order dated 5th April, 2002, that workman will not be entitled for any back wages. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.2. Petitioner-employer by means of this petition has challenged the award passed in Adjudication Case No. 25 of 1982 dated 27th August, 1982,3. The State Government vide its order dated 30th December, 1981 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjkviu Jfed thr flag iq= Qdhjk flag dks lhtu 1980&81 ls dk;Z ij u fy;k tkukmfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha rks lacaf/krJfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikusdk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr A** 4. Labour court issued notices to the employer as well as to the respondent No. 2, the concerned workman. On the date fixed, an application was filed on behalf of employer tha...
Zila Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2492; [2002(94)FLR677]; (2002)3UPLBEC2388
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 5th April, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The award is modified to the extent specified in the order dated 5th April. 2002, that workman will not be entitled for any back wages. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.2. Petitioner-employer by means of this petition has challenged the award passed in adjudication case No. 25 of 1982, dated 27th August, 1982.3. The State Government vide its order dated 30th December, 1981 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedftys flag iq= Qdhjk flag dks lhtu 1980&81 ls dk;Z ij u fy;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@voS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdlvU; fooj.k lfgr A** 4. Labour court issued notices to the employer as well as to the respondent No. 2 the concerned workman. On the date fixed, an application was filed on behalf of employer th...
Om Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1488; [2002(94)FLR405]; (2002)IIILLJ185All; (2002)2UPLBEC1469
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against Modi Rubber Ltd. In our opinion, no writ lies against Modi Rubber Ltd. as it is a private company. It is well-settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus. It has been alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition that more than 50% finance of the respondent company has been taken from financial institutions of the State, in our opinion, this will not make the respondent company an instrumentality of the State, otherwise almost every private company will have to be treated as an instrumentality of the State because such businesses are usually run after taking finance from the financial institutions of the State or nationalized banks.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an interim order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36175 of 2001, dated 7.11.2001, interim orders are no precedents and hence this has no rel...
Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Zila Adhikari/District Deputy Director of Conso ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1577
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in leading writ petition as well as in most of the other writ petitions. Both the parties agree that the writ petition be decided finally at this stage. Consequently, the writ petitions are being decided finally.2. I have heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate in leading Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 and in some other writ petitions as well as M/s. S.C. Verma, Prakash Chandra, N.K. Srivastava, Arjun Singhal, W.H. Khan and Sri H.M.B. Sinha for the petitioners in their respective cases and Chief Standing Counsel Sri Ashok Mehta and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel. Alt these writ petitions arise out of the chak allotment proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act, ...
Brahmi Vs. District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaf ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1848
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned chief standing counsel and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing counsel.2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation. By the aforesaid order dated 22.9.1998, the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided 29 revisions including the revision of the petitioners.3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the parties have agreed that writ petitions be finally decided. A bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999, Ram Kumar and Anr., v. Zila Adhikari/District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., has been decided today by a separate judgment by which order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.9.1998 has already been quashed. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are also being finally decided.4....
Amar Nath Vs. District Judge, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2002
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri V.K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Mukherji, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The impugned orders in the present writ petition are Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition by which the application for issuing the commission to ascertain the actual location of land in dispute was rejected and the District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 18.5.1983 and 24.5.1983.3. According to the petitioner, only dispute is whether the property vests in the civil court or with the Municipal Board. According to the petitioner, he is keeping his stall on the land of the Municipal Board and is paying licence fees till now. The petitioner further states that unless actual location is made by issuing the commission, the land cannot be located and no proper adjudication could be made in proceedings.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgmen...
Sugreev Singh Desuriya Vs. Central Government of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1442
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 865 of 1999 has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, Sugreev Singh Desuriya, against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1995 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby, the learned single Judge, dismissed the Misc. Writ Petition No. 3320 of 1991 with the following observations :'In my opinion as the petitioner has not prayed for any relief against any punishment order either minor or major, but apprehending some punishment, he has prayed for direction to the respondents not to discharge the petitioner prematurely.The main grievance shown by the petitioner with regard to the warning contained in Annexure-23 which refers to previous action taken against the petitioner and the warning by itself is not indicative of the ultimate order of discharge. In my opinion, the warning issued to the petitioner as contained in the letter dated 5th April, 1990, is only to warn so that he may improve and mend himself by which his good acts and discipline m...
Saghir Abbas Vs. 7th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1642
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Revision No. 118 of 1992. Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the revisional court setting aside the order passed by the trial court dated 5.2.1992 remanded back the matter to the trial court to decide the matter in accordance with the directions of the judgment of this Court. Earlier to the present revisional order, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 9330 of 1998 decided on 19.2.1999, in which this Court in the operative portion has held as under : 'In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.2.1997 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall hear the revision afresh in accordance with law. In case he...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »