Allahabad Court April 2002 Judgments
Sajal Kumar Rai Vs. Vice-chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1700; (2002)3UPLBEC2399
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant writ petition is filed against the order impugned dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the result of M.A. IInd year, 2001 of the petitioner is cancelled by a composite order. By the aforesaid composite order dated 29.10.2001, results of number of students had been cancelled and some of them had been debarred also from appearing in subsequent examinations.2. Learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was directed to produce the original record relating to the petitioner. From close scrutiny of the original record, it is revealed that no unauthorised material was recovered either from desk or possession of the petitioner. In para No. 5 of the form which was made available to the petitioner in the examination hall at once to fill up, it is mentioned that the petitioner threw away unauthorised material, but it is not disclosed as to why threw away unauthorised material was not collected either by the Invigilator or flying squa...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Kumar Upadhyay and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1807; (2002)3UPLBEC2150
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioners to work as Kurk Amins in terms of their respective original letters of appointment till such time that regular work is available and further to regularise the petitioners' services in case duly sanctioned post and work is available with the respondent-authorities. Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It appears that advertisement in Dainik Devrath 'Hindi' daily issue dated 9.11.1994 had been issued for inviting applications from eligible persons for certain posts of Kurk Amins. The advertisement aforesaid indicated that candidates must be matriculate. The post of 'Kurk Amin' to be filled for realisation of dues of co-operative societies in the district of Azamgarh. The posts of Kurk Amins thus advertised were to be filled up by eligibl...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1928; [2002(94)FLR942]; (2002)2UPLBEC1479
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was an employee in Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and his services were terminated on 7.3.1987, against which he filed Writ Petition No. 5879 of 1987, which was dismissed on 25.9.1997, by a learned single Judge. Against this Judgment he filed Special Appeal No. 853 of 1997, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.11.1998.3. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner made a representation to the State Government to give ad hocappointment. The said representation was rejected on 27.1.1999. Then it appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1534 (SS) of 1999 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. An interim order was passed by the Lucknow Bench vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition on 27.11.2000 that if the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad is making ad hoc appointment on the post of Tax/Revenue Inspector and there are vacancies, then the case of the petitioner shall also be consi...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Mohan Swarup Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2048
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondent-State.2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 3 of 2001, Ravindra Mohan v. Basudev son of Panna Lal, Bulandshahr, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the respondentNo. 1 refused to declare the vacancy in the accommodation in question and holding that the occupant is entitled for the regularisation as contemplated under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the word 'consent' used under Section 14 of the Act presumed that there should be a consent in writing and in the impugned order the respondent No. 1 has presumed that there is a consent. The contention of Sri Mithal canno...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeshia Industrial and Investment Corpn. of U.P. Ltd. Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2003]47SCL126(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Pradeshia Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (hereinafter called as PICUP) has filed these Criminal Revision Nos. 41 of 2000 and 49 of 2000 against the Judgment and Order dated 20-12-1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in State of U.P. v. M.L. Gupta [Case No. 153 of 1999] by which an application under Section 451, Cr. P.C. has been allowed with a direction that M/s. Keshav Enterprises, Mohali through its authorised representative Amrik Singh be given Supurdagi of the machinery detailed in the list dated 3-5-1999 and 30-8-1999 on furnishing surety bonds of two reliable persons with a personal bond, and the order dated 6-1 -2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 153 of 1999, State of U.P. v. M.L. Gupta and others by which he has directed Official Liquidator, 33 Tashkand Marg, Allahabad to comply with the Order dated 20-12-1999 and handover the Supurdagi of the case properties in his presence on 10-1-2...
Tag this Judgment!Kamata Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Fatehpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1704b
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present-writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26.5.1998 and 4.4.1997, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, Annexures-3 and 1 to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3 in the present petition is admittedly a public charitable trust, who is said to be the owner of the property and the petitioner claims himself to be the tenant thereof. In the year 1991 a notice was sent to the petitioner for eviction from the property in dispute, whereupon the petitioner filed a suit under Section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The respondent No. 3 also filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant in the year 1991 on the ground of arrears of rent. After serving the notice under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, during the pendency of the suit, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been amended to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Nath Chakrawarti and anr. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2040; (2002)2UPLBEC1785
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Uma Kant has appeared for the respondent.2. This petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.1.2002 Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner did not appear in the examination but some imposter appeared on his behalf. The handwriting of the petitioner was compared with that of the answer copy and it was found that it was different. This comparison was done by the Government examiner/Bureau of Police Research and Development, Government of India, who is a neutral person. The finding that the petitioner did not give examination but an imposter give it is a finding of fact and hence, we cannot interfere with it in writ Jurisdiction.3. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. Rajyapal, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2051; (2002)2UPLBEC1480
M. Katju, J.1. The dispute in this case is regarding inter-se seniority of certain teachers in Sakaldiha P.O. College, Chandauli, which is affiliated to the Purvanchal University. Under the relevant Statute of the University, the senior most teacher is entitled to be appointed as the officiating Principal till the regular selection.2. Two conflicting Division Bench decisions have been shown to us. The first is the Division Bench decision of this Court of the Lucknow Bench in Dr. A. K. Kalia v. Chancellor, Lucknow University, 1995 (2) AWC 832 and the other is the Division Bench decision in M. P. Joshi and Ors. v. University of Kumaon, Nainital and Ors., 2000 (4) AWC 3140 : 2000 (3) UPLBEC 2459. In the decision in M. P. Joshi's case (supra), the earlierDivision Bench decision has been held to be per incurium vide para 10 of the said decision. It has been observed in para 10 that the decision in Dr. A. K. Kalia's case (supra) ignored the effect of Clause (7) of Statute 11.12B of the Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Sharma Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division Iv, Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2035
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.4.1997, passed by respondent No. 1 on an application 66K filed by the petitioner, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that during the pendency of civil appeal, the sole appellant Ramesh Chandra Sharma died. According to the assertion made by the petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Sharma died leaving behind his adopted son Rakesh Sharma, the present petitioner. The respondent No. 5, Ramesh Chandra, son of Late Narayan Ji also filed an application for substitution on the strength of the 'Will' dated 14.7.1989 as legatee with the prayer that he may be substituted in place of deceased Ramesh Chandra Sharma. Smt. Sharda Devi, the widow of Ramesh Chandra Sharma also filed an application claiming herself to be the only surviving legal heir. The present petitioner Rakesh Sharma and Ramesh Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anju Chaudhary Vs. Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1619; (2002)2UPLBEC1705
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 74 of U. P. Municipal Corporations Adhiniyani, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2.2.2002 of Special Judge, Gorakhpur, by which the election petition filed by the appellant was rejected.2. The election for the office of Nagar Pramukh of Gorakhpur Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation) was held on 20.11.2000 in which respondent No. 1 was elected. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 61 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No. 1 on several grounds. The respondent No. 1 filed written statement raising various pleas and one of the plea raised was that the election petition has not been properly presented. The special Judge decided some issues as preliminary issues and issue No. 4 was whether the election petition had been properly presented. This issue was decided against the appellant and the election petition was rejected by the order dated 2.2.2002.3. In para 30 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »