Allahabad Court April 2002 Judgments
Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. Director of Agriculture and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1787; (2003)1UPLBEC224
R.B. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 2.7.1991 and a direction for subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In another Writ Petition No. 8827 of 1992 the order dated 10.1.1992 and order dated 24.1.1992 have been challenged.Heard Sri Krishnaji Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed asAssistant Agriculture Inspector in the year 1968 while posted at Aligarh, the petitioner was suspended and a charge-sheet was served to him on 8.12.1988. The petitioner has submitted his reply 27.1.1989 (Annexure-1). The project officer was appointed as an inquiry officer, who after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, was transferred from district Aligarh to another district. After receiving of the reply of the petitioner, no notice was served to the petitioner and...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Alok Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1859; [2002(93)FLR1079]; (2002)2UPLBEC1373
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. We have perused the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits.3. The petitioners were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in pursuance of advertisement (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition). They had applied vide Annexure-2 to the petition and thereafter given appointment on emoluments of Rs. 100 per lecture but not exceeding Rs. 5,000 per month. Petitioners continued as ad hoc Lecturers after getting approval from the Director of Higher Education.4. Subsequently the posts were advertised for making regular selection through the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. In paragraph 38 of the petition, it is stated that petitioners have completed about two years service. They have prayed that the impugned advertisement (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition) be quashed and respondents be restrained from making any selection on the basis of the said advertisement and petitioners should be allowed to continu...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management of Adarsh Inter College, Etawah and anr. Vs. J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1940; (2002)3UPLBEC2537
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. By way of filing these two writ petitions, one being Writ Petition No. 12700 of 2002 and the other being Writ Petition No. 15287 of 20O2 (hereinafter referred to as earlier writ petition and later writ petition respectively), the petitioners who are opposing each other in these two writ petitions, are questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 18.3.2002, passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, Annexure-11 to later writ petition. The aforesaid order dated 18.3.2002 is filed and marked as Annexure-16 to earlier writ petition. It is to be noticed that consequential order dated 23.3.2002 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, Annexure-12 to later writ petition is challenged by the petitioners whereas the same is not under challenge in2. Since both the writ petitions are interlinked and common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide both of them by composite order making later writ petition as lea...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Shiv Kushwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1969; (2002)3UPLBEC2098
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri G. D. Mukherji, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Srivastava. Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the discharge order dated 23rd December, 2001. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to undergo advanced training with his subsequent batch. 3. The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are; the petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army as Recruit Gunner on 14th March, 2001 and reported for training on 16th March. 2001 in Artillery Centre, Hyderabad. It is stated that he left the training unit on 20th September, 2001 and came back to his home. The petitioner's parents and well wishers took him back to Hyderabad to report at Artillery Centre. Hyderabad. When the petitioner re-joined on 12th November, 2001, after being absent for 53 days; 10 days rigorous imprisonment under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Prakash Cane Crusher Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC654(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present trade tax revision has been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called 'the Act') against the order dated February 4, 2002 passed in second appeal No. 9 of 1997 for the year (1986-87) by learned Trade Tax Tribunal.1. Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present trade tax revision is being decided finally at this stage under second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of High Court Rules.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision are that the applicant-revisionist is a registered partnership firm, and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of khandsari and gur, etc., registered under local and Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year (1986-87). The applicant could not obtain form III-Ga(4) from Agrawal Trading Corporation, Navin...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2072
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and both the Counsel prayed that writ petitions be finally disposed of.2. By means of first writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12th August, 1999 passed by respondent No. 4 by which services of the petitioner, Ram Swaroop as class IV employee were terminated.3. The case of the petitioner of first writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Class IV employee and by the order dated 31st March, 1997 he was regularised as Class IV employee in the scale of Rs. 750-940. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner was transferred on 31st May, 1997 and he was working continuously. It has been stated that suddenly by an order dated 12th August, 1999 his services were terminated. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that no notice...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Kumar JaIn Vs. Hari Bhagwan Bansal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1618
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant in the present S.C.C. Revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act challenging an order dated 23.3-2002, passed on an amendment application paper No. 35-Ka. by Additional District Judge, Agra (Court No. 15( in S.C.C. Cose No. 22 of 1999. Hari Bhagwan Bansal v. Vinai Kumar Jain and Ors. pending in the aforesaid Court, whereby the court below allowed amendment in the plaint, as per amendment application paper No. 35-Ka.2. After hearing the parties, the Court below has passed an elaborate order and given reasons for allowing the amendment apart from giving reference of various judgments of this Court as well as that of Apex Court. It is now well-settled that amendments should be allowed. I do not find any ground in the revision before this Court that the order allowing the amendment is mala fide. The order allowing the amendment is fully justified as also reported in case of AIR ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1695; (2002)2UPLBEC1478
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for thepetitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 4.12.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The'petitioner was officiating secretary of a co-operative society. By means of the impugned order, the petitioner has been reverted back to his original substantive post of accountant. Sri H. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 states that since the petitioner was working as officiating secretary, he could be reverted back to his substantive post. In our opinion, since the Impugned order dated 4.12.2001, casts a stigma on the petitioner, it was necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the said order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there were allegations of embezzlement and other misconduct against the petitioner. This is certainly casting a stigma on the petitioner.3. It has been stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Dairy and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1863; (2002)2UPLBEC1674
Vineet Saran, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 20th December. 2001, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 41020 of 2001 dismissing their writ petition, which is under challenge in this special appeal.2. We have heard Sri K. P. Agarwal, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. Suman Sirohi for the appellants ; Sri Pankaj Bhatia learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Bank ; and the standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.3. The brief facts as borne out from the record are that the appellant No. 1 (M/s. Gokul Dairy, a partnership firm) and its partners appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had applied for loan of Rs. 13.53 lakhs from respondent No. 4. Bank of India. Admittedly; a term loan of Rs. 8.53 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed by the bank and further a cash credit limit of Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the appellants. The appellants, who had availed the loan, were unable to pay it back. On the appellants defaulting in repayment of...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Sharma Vs. Ixth Additional District Judge, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1902
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by me on 18th April, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later. Here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The petitioner-tenant filed the present writ petition against the order of the revisional court dated 11.3.2002, whereby the revisional court refused to interfere with the order passed by the trial court dated 12.12.2000 in S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 1997. The aforesaid Suit No. 34 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff, respondent No. 3 in the present petition, on the ground that he is the owner of property No. 11/42, Rambagh, Agra, There was a shop being numbered as Shop No. 3 at the ground floor of the said premises and the same was let out to tenant, defendant No. 1 in the said suit on the monthly rent of Rs. 500. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the aforesaid shop to defendant No. 2 without his...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »