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.
Principal, Mariampur Senior Secondary School, Kanpur Vs. Additional Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1938
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within a month.2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 returnable at an early date.3. The petitioner is the Principal of Mariampur Senior Secondary School in Kanpur which is a convent school. It is well-known that the convent schools are giving perhaps the best education to the children of the country. The fathers and sisters of these schools lead a life of sacrifice denying to themselves family life, and money and doing great service to the people of this country by making perhaps the best education available to many children of the country. Without giving good education of high educational standard, no country can progress.4. Every one, including those who openly criticise English, know that these are the best schools available and hence even those who are outwardly criticizing English and the English Medium Schools, try to get admission of their children in these schools although they shout tha...
Mukesh Singh Vs. Banaras State Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1926
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. The petitioner is permitted to move amendment application to challenge the notification of the Central Government dated 22.2.2002, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He is also permitted to implead the Union of India as respondent No. 3, Sri Vipin Sinha appearing for respondent No. 1 may file counter-affidavit within one month. Learned counsel for the Central Government may also filecounter-affidavit within the same period. 2. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date. 3. List on 8th July, 2O02, along with connected writ petitions, whose details will be supplied by Sri Navin Sinha, advocate. 4. We are shocked at the economic state of affairs which is prevailing in our country for quite some time now. The people of our country usually deposit their hard earned money in the Banks or invest them in U.T.I., I.C.I.C.I., I.D.B.I., Government Schemes, in public undertakings or other organisations. What has been happening for some time now is ...
Ram Chandra Kesari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1931; (2002)3UPLBEC2395
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 1140 of 2001 has been filed by Ram Chandra Kesari against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20350 of 1990, Ram Krishna v. State of U. P. and Ors., whereas Special Appeal No. 1144 of 2001 has been filed by the Committee of Management, Sri Ram Pratap Inter College, Sirsa, Allahabad and another against the same judgment and order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition.2. Since both the special appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned single Judge, they are being decided together.3. We have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A. P. Shahi, in Special Appeal No. 1140 of 2001 and Dr. R. G. Padla, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Padia in Special Appeal No. 1144 of 2001, Sri Jagan Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing ...
Smt. Swatantrata Devi and anr. Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, De ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2018
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the ex parte decree dated 14.9.1983 in O.S. No. 1017 of 1983, Annexure-5 and order dated 18.4.1994, passed by O.P. No. 2, Annexure-10, rejecting restoration application and appellate order dated 31.1.1985, confirming trial Court's order, Annexure-16 passed by O.P. No. 1 to the writ petition.2. Facts born out from the record are inter alia. The dispute relates to plot No. 2903 area 07 acres situated in village Deoria Khas, district Deoria. The respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner No. 1 on 17,4.1977. The remaining land of the said plot i.e., 0.14 acres was transferred to Ramendra Nath Rai.3. The Suit No. 517 of 1971 was filed for cancellation of two sale deeds dated 17.4.1977 by Siddheshwar Mani and others, collaterals of respondent No. 3 Kapil Deo, who filed written statement admitting that the disputed property was sold by him in favour of petitioner No. 1 and Ramendra Nath Rai. The ...
Krishna Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2271; (2002)2UPLBEC1720
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by 175 students of Smt. Harpyari Devi Inter College, Rohai, district Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar) praying that a direction be issued to Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad) to allot roll numbers to them and to permit them to appear in the High School examination which was scheduled to commence on 18.3.2002. 2. There is an institution known as Smt. Harpyari Devi Inter College, Rohai, district Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar) (hereinafter referred to as theinstitution), which is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in accordance with U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The institution, however, does riot receive grant-in-aid from the State Government. The writ petitioners claim that they are regular students of High School class...
S.K. Garg Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2238
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The prayer is that Section 33(7) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, be declared ultra vires. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further prayed that a person should not be permitted to contest the Parliamentary/ Assembly election from more than one constituency.3. We are of the opinion that although a person can vote in an election only from one place, but there is no bar from his contesting election from two places.4. Section 33(7) of the Representation of People's Act states that a person shall not be nominated as a candidate in the election for Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha from more than two constituencies. Thus, there is already a restriction in the Representation of People's Act. 1951, that a person cannot be a candidate for election from more than two constituencies. Earlier to this insertion of Section 33(7) of the Representation of People's Act, by the Amendment in 1996, there was not even the ...
Mohd. Hanif Vs. Niyat Adhikari, Laghoovad Nyayadhish, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1910; (2002)2UPLBEC1947
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against an order, whereby the application of the petitioner for deposit of cost ; which ought to have been deposited within 15 days, failing which the order setting aside the ex parte order was to revive; has been filed after a lapse of six months and only explanation that has been given was that there was Advocates' strike. Advocates' strike cannot be a ground for the condonation of delay because even if the Advocates were on strike, the petitioner could have deposited the money in person.3. In this view of the matter, no interference is required with the orders impugned in the present writ petition in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their...
Hira Lal Arora Vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2011
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This is a tenant petition filed against the order passed on the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, filed by the landlord for release of the accommodation in question. Prescribed authority allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal against this order. During the pendency of the appeal, the son of the landlord died but this did not change the original need of the landlord, his wife and daughter as set up earlier. In my opinion, this did not alter the bona fide need of the landlord. However, landlord preferred an application for amendment that he has created a trust in the memory of his son and the need may now be considered in the light of new fact. This application has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that this evidence can be accepted and considered during the time the appeal is finally heard. The appellate authority in its findings affirmed the need of the landlord. The ...
Greenfield Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2156; (2002)2UPLBEC1789
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The prayers made in the first writ petition are for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the agreement dated 3.4.1996 and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation to refund Rs. 20,65,279.89 along with the interest to the petitioner. The prayer made in the second writ petition is that the order dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Regional Manager. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, Meerut be quashed and the respondents be restrained from Initiating any recovery proceedings against the petitioners. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is interconnected and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The case set up in Writ Petition No. 21789 of 1999 is as follows : The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Greenfield Corporation Ltd., is a public limited company and the petitioner No. 2 Sri Sunil Dublish is the Managing Director of the company. The petitioner No. 1 took loan from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporat...
Subhas Chand Bharati Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2166
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25th January, 2001 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of landlord against the petitioner for ejectment due to arrears of rent. Against the order, petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts, Act, 1887, which resulted into rejection of the revision. These are the two orders which the petitioner has challenged by means of this petition.2. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion and recorded its findings that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the tenancy in question. The trial court recorded the findings that tenancy has been determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has also recorded that petitioner-tenant has arrears of rent and has not deposited the rent. The revisional court repelled the arguments of the petitioner and affirmed the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »