Allahabad Court May 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.
Ram Nath Sehgal Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2497
A.K. Yog, J.1. R. N. Bengal, petitioner, is admittedly the tenant in possession of residential accommodation, House No. 109/276-A, Ram Krishan Nagar, Kanpur since 1990 (Para 2 of the writ petition) called the 'accommodation', relationship of landlord and tenant existed, landlord had voluntarily and willingly gave possession of the premises in question to the petitioner-tenant on an agreed rent after having charged advance as premium advance rent (Paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition) and said facts have not been disputed by the landlords, contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 7. There is no dispute that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') is applicable to the said accommodation.2. The aforesaid paragraphs have been replied in paras 6 to 9 of the counter-affidavit. 'Landlord' in the instant case, therefore, admits that the petitioner was inducted as tenant and allowed to occupy the accommodation ...
Jai NaraIn Agrawal Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2350
A.K. Yog, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226. Constitution of India, seeking to challenge declaration of vacancy vide order dated 19.11.2001 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition).2. The dispute relates to the premises No. 19-E/14. Gujrati Street. Moradabad. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the landlords. The petitioner was inducted with the tacit consent of the landlord in May. 1995 on a rent of Rs. 1.500 per month plus tax. Admittedly, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act') were applicable to the said premises. It is not disputed that the landlord let out the accommodation in breach of the statutory obligations contemplated under Act. i.e., letting out premises in flagrant violation of the Act.3. Initially landlord wanted to evict the petitioner-tenant (unlawful tenant being without allotment order under the Act), which compelled him to file suit No. 26 of 1999 seeking...
Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2050; [2002(94)FLR403]; (2002)3UPLBEC2194
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Union Public Service Commission.2. The petitioner has prayed that he should be allowed to appear in the Civil Service Examination for recruitment to All India Services, which is going to be held by the Union Public Service Commission.3. In our opinion, this Court does not have jurisdiction in the matter as under Section 14 of Administrative Tribunal Act, even recruitment matters are to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The language of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act may be contrasted with the language in the U.P. Public Service, Tribunal Act, 1976, in which service matters can be adjudicated by the Tribunal. In other words, while under the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act matters relating to recruitment before entering into service cannot be adjudicated by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, such matters can be adjudicated by the...
Rama Kant Malviya Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2116; (2002)2UPLBEC1783
Vineet Saran, J.1. The respondent No. 3 filed Civil Suit No. 399 of 1986 for partition of a residential house jointly owned by plaintiff-respondent No. 3 and the defendant-petitioner. In his written statement, the defendant-petitioner raised an issue with regard to under-valuation of the said property. A preliminary issue with regard to the valuation of the suit was framed by the trial court.2. By the order dated 27.9.1988, the learned' Additional Civil Judge decided the preliminary issue and held that since the valuation of the suit property was determined on the basis of the annual rental value as assessed by Nagar Mahapalika, the same was justified. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court, the defendant-petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was dismissed by order dated 16.3.1989. Hence this writ petition.3. I have heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and hav...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jorawar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2202; [2002(94)FLR352]
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This petition was listed for orders. Learned counsel for both the parties made a joint request that this petition may be heard and decided. It is thus, the writ petition is heard on merits and is being disposed of finally. 2. After hearing learned counselfor the parties, the aforesaid petitionwas allowed by me vide my orderdated 8th May, 2002 for the reasonsto be recorded later on. Now here arethe reasons for allowing the aforesaidwrit petition. 3. Petitioner, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the award dated 6.8.1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by Labour Court, Rampur in Adjudication case No. 80 of 1992, by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only ground argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that the labour court have come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper, a specific request has been made befor...
Smt. P. Jacob Vs. Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2236
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 8.5.2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. P. Jacob under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by Additional City Magistrate Vth/ Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar dated 3.4.2001 in Case No. 130 of 2001, Annexure-18 to the writ petition, whereby the application dated 27.5.2,000 filed by the petitioner Smt. P. Jacob under Section 16 (5) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), read with Rule 22 (b) and (f) for review of the order dated 24.5.2000 and the application dated 30.3.2001 for Advocates' commission have been rejected by respondent No. 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has found that no grounds are made out for review of the order under Section 16 (5), read with Rule 22 (b) and (f) of t...
Rameshwar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2328
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. These writ petitions consider If benefit under Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B [Section 122B (4F)] of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Z. A. Act), could be given over land not vested in a Gaon Sabha and consequences of declaration of a Gaon Sabha to be Town Area under Section 3 of the Town Area Act, 1914 (the T. A. Act). THE FACTS2. The land is dispute vested in Gaon Sabha, Rithaura, Bareilly under Section 117 of the Z. A. Act. TheGaon Sabha, Rithaura was upgraded as town Area Rithaura by notification dated 10.4.1974 under the T. A. Act. This Act has been since repealed and now all town areas, according to their population, have been renamed and are governed by the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1914. Town Area. Rithaura has now become Nagar Panchayat, Rithaura. 3. It is not clear from the records when consolidation operations were started under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (the Consolidation Act) but the petitioners filed obj...
Ram Gopal Vs. Vice-chancellor Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1816; (2003)1UPLBEC52
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In this petition, the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 has been challenged and the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Impugned order dated 31.3.1998 (Annexure-4 to this petition) and further prayer for commanding respondent No. 2 to admit the petitioner as fresh in M.A. previous political science and allow him to appear in examination. Heard Sri P. K. Trlpathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By order dated 31.3.1998, it appears that on 18.2.1998 during the course of class study, one Sri Ram Gopal, the petitioner, a student of M.A. previous political science had taken Km. Satyawati a student out of same class and slapped her which was treated as an indiscipline and misconduct and such action of the petitioner was treated to be disgraceful to the discipline and, therefore, he was rusticated from the school. 3. Apparently the petitioner could not bring any 'Act' or Regulation, Rule or any provis...
Dr. (Km.) Archana Gupta Vs. Joint Director of Education, Bareilly and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2100; (2002)3UPLBEC2213
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner Dr. Km. ArchanaGupta, Lecturer (Civics) and officiating as Principal of Arya Kanya Inter College, Shahjahanpur, has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly; and to command respondents not to interfere in her functioning as officiating Principal. The substance of, challenge to the impugned order is that petitioner is senior to Smt. Bina Rastogi, Lecturer (Hindi), respondent No. 5 and Smt. Sushma Saksena, Lecturer (English) in the said college.2. I have heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Subodh Kumar learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned standing counsel.3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 1.7.1966. Smt. Vimla Mehrotra, a Lecturer in College absented herself from 9.7.1982. Petitioner was given ad hoc promotion on her vacancy, on 9.7.1982, which was approved by the competent authority. D...
V.K. Srivastava Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1795; (2002)IIILLJ796All; (2002)3UPLBEC2430
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the counter and rejoinder-affidavits.2. By this writ application, the petitioner has claimed promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre on the ground that he is entitled to the marks allotted for experience of working in rural branches, which according to him, have been denied by the respondents on arbitrary ground, i.e., the cut-off date mentioned in the Circular dated 23.10.1992 was 1.12.1997. On this date, according to the Bank, petitioner was not actually working in a rural branch and as such, was not entitled to marks for working in rural branch. The petitioner has assailed the Circular dated 23.10.1992 as being unfair, arbitrary and on the ground that it provides a handle to the respondents to pick and choose or manipulate consideration of candidates for depriving them from being considered for promotion. He has alleged that thoug...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »