Allahabad Court July 2002 Judgments
Km. Mani Pandey Vs. Committee of Management, Raja Ram Mahila Inter Col ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2831; (2002)3UPLBEC2743
R.R. Yadav, J.1. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Account Officer, respondent No. 4, whereby financial sanction relating to payment of salary of the petitioner is refused on the basis of Government Order dated 31.8.1991. It is further prayed by the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to pay her salary from 31.7.1993 till date and continue to pay her future salary as and when it falls due.2. The factual matrix of the case necessary for just decision is that in recognised aided Non-Government College known as Raja Ram Manila Inter College, Budaun (hereinafter referred to as College) one Smt. Sahida Begam Kazmi was working as L.T. Grade teacher. She was given ad hoc promotion on the post of Lecturer Grade on substantive vacancy under the provisions of Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Edu...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sevak Samaj Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Ad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2913
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner, who had filed restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151. Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the suit, which was decreed ex parte, should be recalled as the petitioner is a necessary party and is in actual possession of the land in dispute. The application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial court by its order dated 30th June, 1998 on the ground that since the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore, the application is not maintainable.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred a revision being 86 of 1998 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi, district Varanasi, who maintained the order passed by the trial court and held that as the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore, he has no right to challenge the decree. Since both the authorities held that petitioner is not a necessary pa...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiraj Kumar Dixit Vs. General Manager (Personnel), Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2970; (2003)ILLJ420All; (2002)3UPLBEC2807
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The father of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Cashier in the UCO Bank, Chowk, Varanasi, He died in harness on 6.2.1997. The petitioner on 20.5.1997 claimed appointment on compassionate ground. His application remained pending. He filed Writ Petition No. 1765 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.1.2000 directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation, which was to be decided by the General Manager (Personnel), UCO Bank, Calcutta. The petitioner made a fresh representation and sent it by registered post along with a copy of the order passed by this Court on 29.1.2000 and 1.2.2000. But since the representation was not decided, he sent reminders on 3.3.2000 and 7.3.2000. The General Manager by his order dated 19.4.2000 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that total income of the family of the deceased was more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ketuka Vs. Mathura
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3061
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is the second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1980 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1979 decreeing the Suit (No. 210 of 1978) for cancellation of the Will dated 18.6.1977. The aforesaid suit was for cancellation of Will as well as for permanent injunction.2. The following question of law has been formulated in this second appeal :'Whether the civil courts had no jurisdiction to decide the suit?'3. 1 have heard the parties counsel and have gone through the records.4. It has been urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit regarding the agricultural land and the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit.5. Considering the provisions of Section 31 Specific Relief Act and Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, this Court, in the cases of Indra Deva v. Ram Pyari, 1982 ALJ 1308 a...
Tag this Judgment!Jaisi Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)9; II(2002)DMC719
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Dwivedi for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This is an application for bail on behalf of appellant Jaisi Ram who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 304B, I.P.C. His earlier bail applications were rejected on the ground that the applicant is husband of deceased and his case is distinguishable from other convicts who have already been bailed out during the pendency of appeal.3. Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in jail for the last about ten years and his appeal has not been heard nor there is any chance of appeal being heard in near future. It was further submitted that the Trial Court has not assigned any special reasons for awarding imprisonment for life and that there has been no compliance of the provisions of Section 235(2), Cr.P.C. on the question of hearing on sentence.4. Under Section 304B the maximum punishment provided is of imprisonment for l...
Tag this Judgment!Sappu Alias Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4550
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appellant was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, Sri C.N. Misra, vide his judgment and order dated 31-8-2000. He had also forwarded a reference No. 1 of 2001. The appellant has submitted his appeal from jail. The appeal was filed beyond 281 days. It was sent through the jail authorities on 14-9-2000. It was admitted on 21-7-2001 after the dealy was condoned.2. Sri A.B.L. Gour was appointed as amicus curie for the appellant on 28-1 -2002.3. The brief facts of the case are that a young girl, Km. Monu alias Meenakshi daughter of the informant, Hari Shanker Sharma, aged about 10 years, went for the repair of her wristwatch to the market at about 4.00 p.m. on 8-11-1995. When she did not return for a considerable length of time, the family members being anxious set out in her search. Till 9.00 p.m. they could not get any whereabouts of her so a report (Dariaft hall) was lodged by PW 1, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar JaIn Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2005(122)LC277(Allahabad)
ORDER1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Shri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-4-2002 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by which the application for waiver of pre-deposit has been decided.3. The Counsel for the petitioners has stated that an amount of penalty imposed by the order dated 29.10.2001 is more than 4.5 crores. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has directed deposit of sum of only Rs. 20,00,000/- from the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 5,00,000/- from petitioner No. 2. On the deposit of the above mentioned amount, the deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty has been waived for hearing of the appeal. We are satisfied that Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances and has allowed the prayer of waiver of the deposit partly.4. We do not find a...
Tag this Judgment!MoinuddIn Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2834
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.2.1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, respondent No. 2, and the order dated 6.6.1984 passed by the Board of Revenue, U. P., at Allahabad in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that plot Nos. 38/2. 2, 55, 56 and 201/168 of village Birbhan alias Malikan Gaon, Paragana Bahariabad. District Ghazipur, (for short 'the land in dispute') are the subject matter of dispute in the present case. The land in dispute was originally owned by Mohammad Tariq, Smt. Abdl Bibi and Kamal Ahmad who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 or thereafter. On their migration from India to Pakistan, the land in dis...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2969; [2002(95)FLR1176]
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This petition was heard and dismissed by me on 29,7.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the reference made by the State Government under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 4.4.1992 for adjudication which has been registered as Adjudication Case No. 140 of 1992. 3. The workman and theemployer both exchanged writtenstatement and evidence before thelabour court. The labour court, afterconsidering the material evidence onrecord, has recorded a finding with regard to the case set up by the workman that he has worked more than 240 days in the previous calendar year and that his services have been terminated after he has worked for about seven years continuously without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was never given any no...
Tag this Judgment!Shamken Cotsyn Limited Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(84)ECC315; 2003LC576(Allahabad); 2003(156)ELT452(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Piyush Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.R. Gupta, learned State Counsel for Commissioner, Central Excise/Revenue.2. In this writ petition order dated 28th June, 2002 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad directing the dispensation for the pre-deposit of Rs. 23,00,000 has been challenged and further direction has been sought to decide the petitioner's appeal filed on 12th April, 2002 without insisting for pre-deposit of any amount expeditiously.3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a public limited Company engaged in the manufacture of processed cotton and man-made fabrics on job work falling under Chapter 52 and Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The petitioner is not engaged in any business of purchase and sale of excisable goods or fabrics. The Government of India has presented excise duty known...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »