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.
Sayed Haidar Ali Naqvi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1611; (2002)3UPLBEC2181
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Petitioner Syed Haider All Naqvi has challenged order dated 3.7.1989 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Allahabad, terminating his services and order dated 2.2.1991 passed by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad dismissing his appeal.2. The facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are stated as under ;'Petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher (Urdu) in a primary school in 1972. He was transferred to Newada from where he was sent and completed B.T.C. training in August, 1979. He was transferred to Primary School, Phoolpur in 1982 and was thereafter transferred back to Primary School, Newada, Block Bahariya district Allahabad. A writ petition was filed by him against the transfer order in which the order was stayed on 19.8.1982. He was again transferred on 11.10.1988 to Junior High School. Tharwai, Block Soraon, district Allahabad and thereafter to Primary School. Lotar, Block Meja, district Allahabad by order of the District Basic Education...
Vinod Bansal Vs. Additional District Judge (Court No. 8), Bulandshahr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1640
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the tenant-petitioner is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in S.C.C Revision No. 59 of 1997 under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 1887. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that landlord filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-tenant after service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882. 3. This suit was decreed ex pane on 19th September, 1995. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX. Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, for setting aside the aforesaid ex parts decree. 4. Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 1887. (hereinafter called the 'Act'), provides that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Code or by this Act, be the procedure follow...
Shitla Prasad Singh Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Supply)/Rent C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1681
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order declaring vacancy passed under Section 12 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on 11.9.2000 by the Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar.2. The premises in dispute is numbered as 46/156, Halsi Road, Kanpur Nagar, which is non-residential. Sri V. K. Katiyar, opposite party No. 2, applied for the allotment of the said premises. On his application, a report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector. who submitted the report that the shop is in illegal possession of Sri Ram Sharan Singh, son of the petitioner. After this report, notices were issued to the parties and ultimately, the shop was declared vacant under Section 12 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the impugned order, dated 11.9.2000, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Supply)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved by that order, the present petition h...
Cawnpore Metal Stores and anr. Vs. Additional District Magistrate/Rent ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1684
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order declaring vacancy passed under Section 12 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 on 24.3.2001 by the Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Kanpur Nagar.2. The premises in dispute is house No. 46/156, Halsi Road. Kanpur Nagar, which is commercial. Anil Mehrotra, opposite party No. 5, applied for the allotment of the said premises alleging that it is vacant. Therefore, the report was called from Rent Control and Eviction Inspector, who reported that the premises is vacant and M/s. Cawnpore Metal Stores, petitioner, is illegal occupant of the same. Thereafter notices were issued to the parties and ultimately the shop was declared vacant by the Impugned order. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been filed.3. I have heard Sri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the affidavits.4. In this case, It is undisputed ...
Mohammed Salim Khan Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1868; (2002)3UPLBEC2173
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel representing respondent No. 3, Sri B. D. Mandhyan.2. The present writ petition is posted today for admission, and for disposal of stay vacate application but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I would like to dispose it of finally on merit at admission stage.3. Without delineating the facts averred in the writ petition and controverted in separate counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 in detail, it is borne out from perusal of record that the term of office of the elected Committee of Management has already expired under the bye-laws of the society. The petitioner Mohammad Salim Khan, the then elected Manager was entitled to hold election, but when the programme of election was declared by him, it was stayed by the order of District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur. it is also borne out from perusal o...
Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur Univers ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2077
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is proforma respondent and no one is appearing after due services of notice upon him.2. Perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is averred by the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 in paragraph 4 of their counter affidavit that while the petitioner was appearing in LLB Part III Examination on 12th December, 2000, the Flying Squad recovered unauthorized material from the ground in front of the seat of the petitioner. The Centre Superintendent endorsed the aforesaid statement of the Flying Squad. The unauthorized material consists of two pages. The Head Examiner reported that the unauthorized material related to the question paper. The petitioner had also used the same while answering question No. 5. Subsequently, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a co...
Shankar Lal Yadav Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1515
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri L.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel as well as Sri Wasim Alam, learned counsel in opposition.2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order of the revisional court dated 16.1.2002. Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the revisional court, after setting aside the order passed by the prescribed authority, allowed the revisions and remanded back the matter to the prescribed authority directing him to decide first the question as to whether there is any vacancy in the accommodation in question and it is only after deciding the question of vacancy, he will decide the release application of the landlord and in case the release application of the landlord is rejected, then he will decide the applications moved for allotment.3. I have gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition. None of the rights of the pet...
Mohd. Yaqub Vs. Vice-chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1604; (2002)3UPLBEC2177
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. A, Khan and Sri Dilip Gupta representing respondents. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to appear in B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the year 2002, which has already started with effect from 4.4.2002. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri Dilip Gupta that the examination of three papers relating to B. Tech. Final Year Examination of year 2002, in which the petitioner intends to appear has already completed.3. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides. 1 am of the view that Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh in order to maintain its academic excellence has prescribed 75% attendance for regular students. In the instant case, indisputably the petitioner was a regular student, therefore, he can be el...
Vindhya Vasini Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1623; (2002)3UPLBEC2449
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the orders impugned dated 22.5.2000 (Annexure-14) and 23.3.2002 (Annexure-15) to the writ petition.2. It is settled principle of law that a writ of certiorari is maintainable against final order after exhausting all the statutory remedy. Here, in the instant case, l/4th members of the society has initiated proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, before the Prescribed Authority. Preliminary objection was raised regarding jurisdiction before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority by Impugned orders rejected the preliminary objection. The orders impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority are eminently Just and proper and do not require interference at this stage.3. It is held that the validity of the election depends upon the actual number of members of the general body of the society registered in Uttar Pradesh entitled (o participate in such election under bye-...
Satish Chandra Goel Vs. Chief Development Officer, Saharanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1617; [2002(94)FLR309]; (2002)2UPLBEC1482
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is challenging that part of the Judgment of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, dated 24.8.2001, Annexure-13 to the writ petition, by which he has been deprived of interest on his pension. Interest is the normal accretion on the principal amount, and it is not a penalty. If the payment is made in time, the person can earn interest on the amount paid to him. But if there is delay in payment, the person cannot earn interest, and instead the person/authority, who withheld the payment earns interest on it. Hence, he has to pay not only the principal amount but also the interest on it.3. On the facts of the case, we modify the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be given 12% per annum interest on the arrears of his pension from the date when the amount was due till the date of payment, and such payment of interest must be made within three...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »