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.
Dharam Vir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1818; (2002)2UPLBEC1734
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The core question involved in the instant writ petition is whether petitioner is entitled to receive disability pension for the injury 'Sensory Neural Deafness' (both ears) sustained by him on 22nd August, 1984, while taking part in navigation competition organised by Headquarter 23, Inf. Division. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides at length and after hearing following order was dictated in Court today, which reads thus : 'The instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed with special cost of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner for insensitivity of the respondents refusing disability pension to the petitioner for such a long time which he was entitled to receive even on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The order impugned dated 19.9.1986 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and appellate communication order dated 30.4.1987 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to receivearrears of disability p...
Hind Lamps Limited Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1908; [2002(94)FLR203]; (2002)IIILLJ472All; (2002)2UPLBEC1672
Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.1. We have heard Shri V. B. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Shri B. N. Singh, learned counsel submits that the present special appeal at the instance of the appellant is not maintainable. According to him, the order dated 27.3.2002, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra, grantingpermission to the appellant to lay off its workmen is an order of Tribunal. This Court had passed the impugned order in exercise of its power of general superintendence under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the special appeal is not maintainable. He relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. V. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 1147. 3. Shri V. B. Singh, le...
Uttar Pradeshiya Vidyalaya Nirikshak Sangh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1957; (2002)3UPLBEC2563
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000 to the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/ Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the corresponding higher pay scale to the post of Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari in terms of G.O. dated 20.7.2001, Annexure-1 to the petition.3. The petitioner no. 1 is an employee's association and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are members of the association and are holding the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the Education Department of the U.P. Government. The grievance of the petitioners are regarding anomalies existing in their pay scales vis-a-vis the pay scale applicable to the Head Masters of Junior High Schools.4. The petitioner No. 2 was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools and granted appoin...
Anand Prakash Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Muzaffarnagar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2057
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who alleges himself to be a tenant in the accommodation in dispute, was inducted in the year 1986, challenged the order dated 19.6.1998, passed by the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Muzaffarnagar in Case No, 38 of 1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the accommodation in dispute has been deemed to be declared vacant and the petitioner Anand Prakash has been declared to be an un-authorised occupant. One Pankaj Kumar Jain filed application enumerating the facts that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he occupied the said accommodation in dispute with the consent of the landlord in the year 1986. Petitioner has set up his case before the prescribed authority that in fact, the accommodation in dispute was constructed in ...
Dinesh Chandra Vs. Bal Kishan Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2308
A.K. Yog, J.1. The second appeal arises out of concurrent judgment and decree dated 16.2.1993 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kannauj, district Farrukhabad in Original Suit No. 421 of 1982. Bal Kishan v. Dinesh Chandra, whereby the trial court dismissed the suit and appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated February 27, 2002, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.2. Heard Sri Dhruva Narain, advocate, on behalf of the defendant appellant and perused the record.3. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants Dinesh Chandra, son of Chimman Lal and Chimman Lal son of Laxman Prasad (both being son and father respectively) seeking decree for ejectment and recovery of mesne profit/damages w.e.f. June. 1982, on the ground that defendant unlawfully, without authority, unauthorisedly and without the consent of the owner/landlord (the plaintiff) took possession and failed to vacate in spite of registered notice being sent.4. The defendants, however, on the other hand, in th...
Registrar of Companies Vs. Country Informtech Services (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]39SCL504(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Subodh Kumar, Additional standing counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent-company.2. The company petition has been advertised under Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in newspapers 'Hindustan Times' (English) published from Lucknow and 'Dainik Jagran' (Hindi) published from Lucknow and in Official Gazette of U.P. on 25-12-2001, and 9-3-2002 respectively. Counlry Informtcch Services (P.) Ltd. (Respondent-company) was incorporated as a private limited company on 8-10-1998 under the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') having its registered office at 3rd Floor, Dham Nirman Complex, 15-A, Ashok N. Marg, Lucknow with object to set up, operate manage computer training centres, data processing etc. The respondent-company has not filed any balance shcel with the registered office and, thus, the financial position of the company could not be ascertained. In the annual return of the company made up to 29-9-1999, Shri Rakcsh Tand...
In Re: Triveni Refinery (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]39SCL655(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. This company application has been registered upon receipt of an opinion from the board of industrial and financial reconstruction, in BIFR Case No. 90 of 1997 in the matter of Triveni Refinery (P.) Ltd. (TRPL), recorded under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act'), to wind up respondent-company.2. Upon receipt of reference, notices were directed to be issued on 2-4-2002 to the respondent-company, I.F.C.I. and PICUP fixing the matter for orders on 6-5-2002. Office has reported that notices were sent on 10-4-2002 by registered post AD but neither A.D. nor undelivered cover have been returned back. PICUP has entered appearance through Sri Vivek Saran, Advocate and support winding up the company. Notices despatched by registered post on 10-4-2002, under rules of the Court, the same shall be deemed to be served upon the respondent-company and I.F.C.I.3. Triveny Refinery (P.) Ltd. (TRPL) was declared as Sick Industr...
Umadatt Vs. Additional District Judge, Pipari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1813
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the orders dated 18.7.1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra allowing Appeal No. 3200 of 1990 and setting aside the order passed by Forest Settlement Officer dated 25.8.1990 and the order dated 19.11.1992 rejecting the restoration application. 2. The dispute in the writ petition relates to plot Nos. 440Ka, 476Ka, 475Kha, 478Ka, 482Kha, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488Ga, 546Kha, 549Kha situated in village Parasi, Pargana Singrauli, district Sonbhadra. 3. The Forest Settlement Officer/Dy. Collector, Pipari, Sonbhadra, by the judgment dated 25.8.1990 decreed Suit No. 6343 and held that the petitioner had already perfected rights/title under U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act except plot Nos. 440 and 476. An appeal preferred by Forest Department before the District Judgeregistered as Appeal No. 3200 of 1990 was allowed ex parte by judgment dated 18.7.1992 and judgment and order dated 25.8.1990 was reversed relating to all the plots except...
Som Datta Builders Ltd. Vs. Kanpur Jal Sansthan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1950; (2002)2UPLBEC1777
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2001 by which the application 5C for grant of interim injunction filed by it, was rejected.2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed O.S. No. 1212 of 2000 praying that it be declared that all the demand bills of house tax, water tax and drainage tax made by the defendants for the period 1993 to 2001 in respect of the premises bearing No. 15/299 are void ab initio. Another prayer made in the suit is that a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from raising a demand of house tax amounting to Rs. 6,26,801 and water tax and drainage tax amounting to Rs. 21,88,377 in respect of the aforesaid premises.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that premises No. 15/299 is a Shopping Plaza having 97 shops attached to Hotel Landmark. The shops were assessed to house tax by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur (defendant No. 2...
Raghuvir Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1955
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Sahai and Shri H.S.N. Tripathi for the contesting respondents.2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking quashing of the order of the appellate authority passed in an appeal filed under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, confirming the order of the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the said Act, whereby the application of the three landlords for release of the said accommodation on the basis of their bona fide requirement was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P.N. Saxena argued that from the perusal of the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) which is reproduced below, it is apparent that the satisfaction which is to be recorded by the prescribed authority before releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord, must also contain as to whether the need of the landlord will be satisfied by releasing only part of the accommodation or full accom...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »