Allahabad Court April 2002 Judgments
Janardan Prasad Rai Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1944; (2002)2UPLBEC1377
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.1.1978, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by the Committee of Management for terminating his services with effect from 7.11.1977.3. The allegation of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination has been passed by the manager without obtaining any prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools, as required under Section 16G (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 16G (3) of the Act provides that order of suspension of a teacher including the Head Master of the institution can be passed after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district. The writ petition was earlier allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 17.2,1993 on the ground that prior to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the termi...
Tag this Judgment!ShahabuddIn Vs. Labour Court, U.P., Ghaziabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1988; (2002)3UPLBEC2132
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijai Bahadur, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 31,3.1986 passed by the Labour Court, Ohazlabad, passed in Adjudication Case No. 70 of 1981. 3. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a permanent repairer in the D. T. Section of M/s. Modi Pon Limited, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, He was elected as a President of the Mazdoor Sangh, Modi Pon Limited, a union of the workmen of respondent No. 2, and had been approaching the management for ventilating the grievances of the workers which enraged the employer. He alleged that as a sequel, a false and illegal charge-sheet dated 18.3.1979, was given to the petitioner alleging that when he came on duty at about 7 a.m. in 'A' shift on 9.3.1979, he entered in D.T.Department and without any provocation or reason started abusing the supervisor Sri R. P. Garg, his superior off...
Tag this Judgment!inam Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1977
S. R. Singh and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Petitioner herein seeks the relief of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 31.3.2002 (Annexure-1) and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 not to grant any extension of the term of mining lease granted to respondent No. 4 beyond 15.4.2002 by which the District Magistrate extended the period of lease upto 30.4.2002 in continuation of the earlier order dated 15.3.2002. The three-year term of the mining lease granted in favour of the 4th respondent came to an end by efflux of time on 5.4.2001. 2. Indisputably, under the mining policy of the Government, mining leases for minor mineral prior to 27.8.1994 used to be granted by auction/tender-cum-auction as provided in Chapter IV of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 but by means of a G.O. dated 27.8.1994, it was decided to grant mining lease for operating minor minerals by inviting applications under Chapter II of the Rules. But by means of G.O....
Tag this Judgment!Cawnpore Chemical Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2012
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. On a recommendation of Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) vide its order dated 14.2.1990, M/s. Cawnpore Chemical Works (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter called as respondent company) and upon dismissal of appeal preferred by respondent company before the appellate authority on 8.2.1991, the respondent company was wound up, by an order of this Court dated 2.5.1991, and Official Liquidator was appointed as liquidator for conducting winding up proceedings. 2. A Writ Petition No. 9441 of 19.91 was filed by respondent company challenging the orders of B.I.F.R. and A.A.I.F.R. By an interim order dated 3.9.1991, the operation of appellate order was stayed. Subsequently, by another ex parte order dated 3.2.1994, the order dated 14.2.1990 passed by B.I.F.R. was also stayed. An application (A-17) was filed on behalf of the company in Misc. Company Application No. 1 of 1991 praying that winding up order dated 2.5.1991 be kept in abeyance on account of the stay or...
Tag this Judgment!Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT339(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12th April, 2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad in respect of the order dated 30th September, 2001 of Deputy Commissioner passed in Order-in-Original No. 36 of 2001 (Annexure No. 1) in so far it relates to the deposit of 50 per cent of the demand. It has been further prayed for erection to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of any amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act in short 'Act' and further direction to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits without imposing any pre-condition on pre-deposit of any amount under Section 35F of the Act.2. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal and Sri Tarun Agarwala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel.3. By consent of the parties, the writ petition are decided at this stage under Proviso Second to Rule II of Chapter XXII of Allahabad Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Amrik Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3665
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. This is a petition to quash the charge sheet and proceedings of case No. 2180 of 2000, State v. Amrik Singh and Ors., pending in the Court if IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :3. An F.I.R. for offences under Sections 419, 420, I.P.C. was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. In brief it was alleged that the complainant gave an order to the petitioner to install a sella rice plant in Tehsil Baheri and an agreement was executed. According to the agreement the plant was to be completed by 10-9-1978 for agreed amount of Rs. 13,71,000/-. A written agreement was executed for completion of plant, the period was mutually extended up to 30-l0-1978, that 80% of the amount of the plant was given thought 75% work only was not done. The petitioner did not complete the plant and ran away from the site to Amritsar, that the complainant contacted the petitioner several times and he repeat...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ali Akbar Vs. Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1945; (2002)3UPLBEC2128
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 20.9.1997 and the order dated 16.3.1998 (Annexures-6 and 20 to the writ petition respectively). The order dated 20.9.1997 is to the effect that the petitioner had unauthorisedly and illegally remained in employment with effect from 30.6.1993 to 19.9.1997 on the basis of Incorrect date of birth given at the time of entry into service. Annexure-20 is the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner arising out of the order dated 20.9.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1.3.1960 in Cooper Alien Company, a Unit of B.I.C. where his date of b...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Nath Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2052
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31st December, 1999 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and the order dated 23rd July, 1996 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) by which petitioner was relieved from service from the post of Lower Division Clerk. Further, a writ of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner and pay arrears of salary has been claimed.3. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are ; petitioner claims to be retrenched employee of the Census Department. Petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category. Petitioner states that in pursuance of advertisement dated 1st January, 1993, for the post of clerk in the office of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh, he applied and after interview, was selected and appointed vide appointment order dated 8th February, 1993. The appointment order dated 8th February,...
Tag this Judgment!Mudit Refrigeration Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD289(All.)
1. Since all the appeals involve some common questions of law and facts, all the above mentioned appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience all the appeals are consolidated together.Mudit Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd., Allahabad, ITA. No.2446/All/1992 Asst. yr. 1990-91 2. The appeal is directed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 7th Sept., 1992. The following grounds of appeal have been taken : "1. Because the CIT(A) is not at all justified in including the Entertainment Tax subsidy received by the assessee as revenue income since it was a capital receipt, not liable to tax. 2. Because the subsidy by its very nature could not have been treated as income and the inclusion of Rs. 2,18,337 in the computation of income is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case." 3. The third ground of appeal relating to the addition of Rs. 2,000 out of travelling expenses has not been pressed for hearing and, therefore, dismissed.4. The assessee is a private li...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Vs. Collector, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1673
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the auction notice dated 29.10.2001 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to sell house Nos. 4/279 and 4/279A. Gudai Mansoor Khan, Kachehari Ghat, Agra. 2. The case set-up in the writ petition is that one Mitthan Lal was owner of houses No. 4/279 and 4/279A. He executed a sale deed of the houses in dispute in favour of thepetitioner and his brother Late Tara Chand on 4.12.1971. There was a family settlement between the petitioner and his brother Tara Chand in which both the houses came in the share of the former and he also got possession over the same. A notice was pasted on the petitioner's house on 27.8.2001 that the houses would be auctioned for recovery of dues of sales tax standing against the firm M/s. Mltthan Lal Oil Stores. Chatta Bazar, Kachehari Ghat, Agra. A notice was subsequently issued on 29.10.2001 notifying that the houses would b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »