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.
Surendra Nath Rai and anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2301
Yatindra Singh, J.1. A suit or a civil appeal can be decided on the basis of compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) but 'whether a writ petition in the nature of certiorari, which lies on the error apparent on the face of the record, can be decided (allowed) on the basis of a compromise' is a question involved in these cases.THE FACTS2. One Abhilash Singh was common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons. Hanuman Dayal Singh, Hari Narain Singh and Shiv Narain Singh. The successor-in -interest of Hanuman Dayal Singh and Hari Narain Singh (the plaintiffs) are on one side ; one of the grand daughters of Shiv Narain Singh namely. Smt. Ram Kumari alias Rama Devi and her husband Surendra Nalh Rai (the defendant-appellants) are on the other side.3. The dispute in Second Appeal No. 1271 of 2000 is in respect of house No. D-44/182-A, Bagh Rani Bhawani (Ramapura). Varanasi. Smt Shyam Kunwar, the mother of Smt. Ram Kumari and daughter-in-law of Shiv Narain Si...
Municipal Board Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2002All342; (2002)3UPLBEC2749
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The Municipal Board. Chandpur, district Bijnor, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Director General, Postal Services, respondent No. 2 and the Post Master, Post Officer Bijnor to encash all the National Saving Certificates in the custody of the respondent No. 3 with all the benefits accrued thereon after maturity. 2. Briefly, stated the tacts arc that on 26-7-1976 the Board through its President purchased fifty '7 Years' National Savings Certificates of Vth Issue from the Post Office, Chandpur, District Bijnor. Each certificate was of the value of rupees One thousand and was to be matured after 7 years. The details of these certificates are as follows :-- Date of Purchase of CertificatesDate of maturityNumber of National Saving CertificatesAmount of CertificatesInterest on maturityTotal amount after maturity12345626-7-7626-7-8350 09440) to 094447 & 094362 to 09436450,000/-49,000/-99,000/-3. The Board...
Trimurti Contractors Vs. Secretary to Government of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3058
Khem Karan, J.1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the State on admission of this writ petition.2. The petitioner has come with a case that he has been given a contract of collecting Toll tax of Mohana Bridge, situated at 383 Kms. on Bilrayan Panwadi Marg in district Jalaun and just at a distance of 2-3 Kms. an illegal bridge is being constructed by Sri Narayan Das and the construction of bridge by Sri Narayan Das' is likely to adversely affect his contract. It is said that he gave representation to the Collector and Commissioner for taking suitable action in the matter, but they kept the matter with them and consequently, the petitioner had no remedy but to make reference under Rule 6 of the U. P. Tolls Regulation Levy and Collection Rules, 1980. He submits that this reference is lying with the Government and is not being decided.3. Sri Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ pet...
Bijendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3671
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30-7-2001 passed by X Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 1193 of 1999 whereby the appellant is convicted under Section 364 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; under Section 376(2) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/- and under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death.2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Bijendra Singh resides in front of P.A. Batalian in mohalla Sukhrawali police station Quarsi district Aligarh along with his family. One constable Subhash Singh of 45 Batalian comes to his house to take milk. On 29-1-1998 at about 9.00 a.m. Subhash along with Bijendra Singh Solanki constable of the same Batalian came to his house. The complainant...
Manjeet Singh Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1905
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Shri Kailash Nath Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are not applicable to the building in question, which admittedly was let out in the year 1993 without there being any allotment order. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the rules, the guidelines for the District Magistrate in the matter of allotment are prescribed that no allotment can be made for the vend of liquor, therefore, private agreement between the petitioner and landlord for letting the shop is enforceable. The impugned order is admittedly an interlocutory order, which has been passed ex parte and by that, petitioner has been restrained from using the shop in question by the revisional authority.3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent N...
Dr. S.K. Rathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1906; [2002(94)FLR668]; (2002)3UPLBEC2193
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Sri Alok Sharma has appeared for respondent No. 3 and Sri M. K. Gupta appeared for respondent No. 4. 2. The question involved in this case is whether the selection for the post of Principal of a Degree College in U. P. is to be made by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission or by the University to which the Degree College is affiliated, 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision in S. K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and Ors. 2000 (4) AWC 2713 (SC) : JT 20OO (8) SC 267 and on the basis of that decision, he has submitted that a Principal cannot be selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. 4. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decision in S. K. Ratht v. Prem Hari Sharma (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court held in that case that ...
Sunil Poddar and ors. Vs. Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribuna ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas517(All); (2005)3CompLJ337(All)
S. Harkauli, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel representing the respondent-bank.2. The brief relevant facts are that the respondent-bank, i.e., Union Bank of India, advanced a loan to a company known as M/s. Adhunik Detergent Ltd. For that loan, the petitioners who were then directors of that company stood guarantors. In view of the guarantee, the petitioners were also made defendants in the claim by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The claim is alleged to have been decreed ex parte by the DRT on December 15, 2000. The petitioners moved an application for setting aside that ex parte order. The application was rejected by the DRT by order dated December 20, 2001.3. The above order dated December 20, 2001, was challenged by the petitioners in an appeal before the DRAT.4. By the impugned order dated April 4, 2002, the DRAT has rejected the contention of the petitioners that the appeal was not under Section 20 of th...
Hoti Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1761; (2002)3UPLBEC2024
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. In the aforesaid two writ petitions, common question of legislative transgression of State Legislature inserting Sub-clause (iii-a) in Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by way of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 21 of 1998) in contravention of mandatory provisions enshrined under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India is involved. therefore, I propose to decide these two writ petitions by a composite order giving brief facts of both these cases indicating laissez faire and arbitrariness in passing the Impugned orders by Executive Officers having no jurisdiction in such disputes ignoring the supremacy of rule of law in a democratic polity like ours. 2. In Writ Petition No. 2579 of 2002, Hoti Lal contested the election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jarani Kalan as a scheduled caste candidate as he belongs to Kanjar caste which finds place in the list of sched...
Vijay Prakash Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1800; [2002(94)FLR458]; (2002)2UPLBEC1946
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Sri Pushpendra Singh has appeared for the respondent No. 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2000 expunging the adverse entry granted to the respondent No. 4. In our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter as the matter was between the respondent No. 4 and the Government. 3. in our opinion. If any adverse entry or punishment is given to any employee and subsequently, the same is quashed by the higher authority or by the Tribunal, any other employee cannot challenge the order cancelling that entry or punishment, otherwise there will be no end to the dispute in this regard. The disciplinary matters are between the delinquent employee and the Government, and other Government employees have nothing to do in this. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1655, and submi...
Dr. Krishna Kant Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1907; [2002(94)FLR19]; (2002)2UPLBEC1945
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, inter alia, has claimed that he should be considered for promotion for the post of Assistant Alcohol Technologist. This is precisely the prayer which the petitioner has made in Reference Application No, 461 of 2000 before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. Since the petitioner is pursuing his alternative remedy before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in this writ petition apart from claiming that he should be considered for promotion as Assistant Alcohol Technologist, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Impugned orders dated 29.4.2000 and 4.11.2000 by which the respondent No. 4 was promoted and the petitioner's representation was rejected. In our opinion, the petitioner should move an amendment application in the claim petition before the Tribunal challe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »