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.
Subhash Krishna Saxena Vs. Special Judge (E.C. Act) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2125
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition was allowed by me vide order dated 15.4.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the writ petition.2. This writ petition by the landlord who filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the same is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. In support of the aforesaid application, the petitioner has filed an estimate of the experts, who said that the cost of reconstruction is about Rs. 50,000. The petitioner has also demonstratedthat he has capacity to invest Rs. 50,000 and a building plan in accordance with the bye-laws of the concerned local authority was also filed. The prescribed authority has arrived at the finding that according to the report of the experts building in dispute is over 70 years old and is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The est...
Shamsher Alam Alias Sheru and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3588
1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 24-1-2002 giving rise to registration of Case Crime No. 53 of 2002, P.S. Kotwali Mau, District Mau, under Sections 363/366/506, I.P.C. (as contained in Annexure 1) by granting a writ of certiorari. Their second prayer is to command the Police not to arrest them in relation to Criminal Case aforementioned. Their last prayer is to issue any other writ, order or direction of suitable nature which may be deemed fit and proper.2. A perusal of the impugned First Information Report shows, inter alia, that respondent No. 3 herein Jafrul Hasan lodged a written report on 24-1-2002 to the effect that her daughter Kumari Rumi Parveen, who is a student of IInd year B.A. of Degree College Talimuddin Niswaj Mau in the morning of 10th January, 2002 had gone out for her studies along with her friends Nasreen and Pinki but she did not return back to home after closure of the school and then an enquiry was made on w...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1524; [2002(93)FLR942]; (2002)2UPLBEC1466
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the employer-petitioners, challenging the -award passed by the labour court in leading Writ Petition No. 15022 of 1995, the award dated 28.12.1994 passed in Adjudication Case No. 107 of 1991 and in another Writ Petition No. 29962 of 1994, the award dated 11.10.1993 passed in Adjudication Case No. 252 of 1992 as well as the order dated 5.8.1994 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner. Kanpur. Since the facts and questions of law raised in both the writ petitions are common, they are dealt with together and after hearing learned counsel for the parties in both the cases, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. In both these writ petitions, the facts leading to the filing of present writ, petitions are that the respondent-workmen concerned were appointed by the employer and their services were terminated, as alleged, without compliance of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, though both the wo...
Neeraj Bharadwaj Vs. Marathwada Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1550
S.K. Singh, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is the order dated 14.9.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3. 2. There is an institution known as Marathwada Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) Engineering College, Dhamcra Chola. Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). It is imparting education to the students and awarding degree to B.E., B.Tech. andB.C.A. (Bachelor of Computer Application). The aforesaid Institute is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and U. P. Technical University in Lucknow. The aforesaid Institute is managed by a society known as Gramodyog Shiksha Mandal Dhamera Chola which is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The society has its own by-laws which is also approved by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P., Meerut. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Librarian by the Chairman of the college by appointment letter dated 1.4.2002. It is said t...
Zaheer Ahmad Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Fatehpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1592
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the shop in question. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord preferred a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court after re-appreciating the evidence decreed the suit instead of remanding back the matter to the trial court. Against the judgment and order of the revisional court the present writ petition has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this Court one in Smt. Batasho Devi v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mathura and Ors. 1999 (2) ARC 862 and the second in Smt. Sushila and Ors. v. IVth Additional District Judge. Kanpur and Ors. 1999 (I) AWC 644 : 1998 (2) ARC 595.3. The second case of 1998 (2) ARC 595, relates to applicability of the right of the landlord to file a suit on the ground available under Section 20 (1) of the U. P. Act ...
Sabir Ali and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1566; (2002)3UPLBEC2440
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :'Petitioner No. 1 Sabir Ali was appointed as 'Bandi Rakshak'/ Warder on 6th March, 1972, on temporary basis by the Superintendent Jail. Bareilly. Petitioner No. 2 Prakash Chandra Lyall was also appointed as 'Bandi Rakshak' /Warder on 1st December, 1974, on temporary basis by the Superintendent Jail, Bareilly. Both the petitioners continued to discharge duties on their respective posts from the date of their initial appointments and were given pay scale of 'Bandi Rakshak'/Warder, selection grade and super selection grade. Deductions towards G.P.F. and Insurance was also made with effect from 1982. After attaining age of 58 years petitioner No. 1 was superannuated on 31.7.2000 and the petitioner No. 2 ...
Committee of Management, Prem Lal Singhania Kanya Inter College and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1554; (2002)3UPLBEC2450
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Verma representing respondent No. 4. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that order impugned dated 24.3.2002, Annexure-7 to the writ petition is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the appointment of authorised controller of petitioners' Institution is within exclusive jurisdiction of either State Government or Joint Director of Education. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, respondent No. 1 has not jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the order impugned, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Verma in feeble voice made an attempt to support the order impugned (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passe...
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1609; [2002(93)FLR836]; (2002)IVLLJ198All; (2002)2UPLBEC1590
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-employer have challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court. II. U, P.. Kanpur Nagar dated 20.1.1998. Annexure-19 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1995, arising out of the following reference made by the State Government vide its order dated 21.1.1994 for adjudication before the labour court :'Whether the termination of services of two workmen from the dates mentioned in front of their names by the employer were illegal and Invalid? If yes, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date etc.' Sl. No.Name of EmployeeFather's NameDate of Termination1.Ram KishoreSri Chokhe Lal30.9.19912.Ram Sajeevan SingbSri Parmatmadeen singh31.1.19922. Notices were issued to the parties concerned and the parties have filed their written statements and adduced their evidence. Before the labour court after the exchange of t...
Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and anr. Vs. Prescribed Authority, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1637; [2002(93)FLR1084]; (2002)2UPLBEC1475
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, employer-petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court (V), U. P., Meerut dated20.4.1991. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 25.5.1990 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal (V) U. P., Meerut. which reads thus : 'Whether the termination of services of workman Sri Brijendra Singh son of Sri Kale Singh, by the employer w.e.f. 18.2.1989, was legal and valid? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date etc.?' 3. The labour court after exchange of the pleadings, written statements and evidences framed the following two additional issues : '(1) Whether the workman is covered with the definition of workman under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, if so then its effect? ; and (2) Whether the employer is covered wi...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mora ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1702; [2002(93)FLR901]; (2002)3UPLBEC2446
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-employer has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad, dated 3.2.1995. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, who under the purported exercise of powers under Clause (LL) of the standing orders have directed the employer to correct the date of birth of the workman, which was recorded in the service record.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-workman Chandru Singh, son of Ghaseeta was employed with the petitioner-employer. According to his own case, his date of birth as entered in Provident Fund record and other service record was 1933. The date is not very relevant, therefore, is not being discussed. The employer served a notice dated 30.8,1993 informing the aforesaid respondent-workman that according to the Provident Fund record, he would be completing 60 years of age on 31.10.1993. therefore, he wo...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »