Allahabad Court July 2002 Judgments
Vijai Kumar Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4561
ORDER1. Learned Government Counsel may file counter affidavit within a month.2. Issue notice to respondent No. 4 returnable at an early date.3. Until further order of this Court we stay the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 214 of 2001, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 467 and 471, I.P.C. Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura but the investigation may go on.4. We have heard Sri S.P. Singh, General Secretary of the High Court Bar Association as Amicus Curiae, in this case .5. The petitioner Vijai Kumar Verma is a Government Servant posted in the U.P. Police Department as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) /Head Clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras. By means of this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned F.I.R. filed against him. This F.I.R. states that certain appointment under Dying in Harness Rules was obtained by playing some fraud in which the petitioner was also involved. The petitioner claims that he is innocent and has been falsely ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. O.P. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3067
Jagdish Bhalla, J. 1. Petitioner is a Member of Agricultural Services of the State of U. P. and was working as a Deputy Director/Officer Incharge,Sambhagiya Krishi Parikshan Evam Pradarshan Kendra, Varanasi.2. By the order dated 22nd June, 2001, some Members of Agricultural Services including the petitioner were sent on deputation to different departments. Petitioner, who was working as a Deputy Director at Varanasi was sent on deputation on the post of Chief General Manager (Marketing) in U. P. Agro by the said order dated 22nd June, 2001 on which he took charge on 26th June,2001. In the order, it was clearly mentioned that this arrangement was purely an interim/temporary arrangement.3. By the order dated 29th June, 2002. the State Government has posted one Sri Nathu Ram, Joint Director, Agricultural (Prasar), Saharanpur as Chief General Manager, U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', (Lucknow). This post was held by the petitioner p...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal Sons and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC27(All)
R.B. Mishra, J.1. The present revision has been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called 'the Act') against the order dated May 29/30, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 127 of 2000 and 128 of 2000 preferred by applicant/revisionist as well as Appeal Nos. 277 of 2000 and 278 of 2000 preferred by the Commissioner.1A. Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner/revenue and with the consent of the parties the revision is disposed of finally at this stage under second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision are that the applicant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying business of manufacture and sale of sandalwood oil and perfumes. For t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Maurya Vs. Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2677; [2002(95)FLR214]; (2002)3UPLBEC2710
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Jagannath Singh for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.2. A transfer order by which petitioner, working as Stenographer in the Office of Superintendent of Police (Jamunapar), Allahabad, as Sub -Inspector (M) to P.A.C. Allahabad has been challenged on the ground that an officer working in ministerial branch of police force U. P. cannot be transferred to Provincial Armed Constabulary and secondly on the ground that petitioner is suffering from heart trouble and has been advised treatment at Allahabad.3. It is contended by counsel for petitioner that Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarter, Allahabad has no power to transfer petitioner to P.A.C. and that such a power can only be exercised by Director General of Police, U. P. as provided in Regulation 525 U. P. Police Regulations. Petitioner has not been listed/enrolled under Section 4 of U. P. P.A.C. Act, 1948. A Government Order relied upon by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2686
B.K. Rathi, J. 1. Both these revisions have been directed against the common order passed in suits Nos. 44 of 1993 and 45 of 1993 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hamirpur on 27.9.1993. The facts of both the suits are connected and, therefore, the matter has been decided by the common judgment by the trial court. Both the revisions are accordingly disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Gupta. Learned counsel for the revisionists. Sri P. P. Srtvastava, learned senior advocate and Sri Anil Srivastava were appearing on behalf of the opposite party and they took several adjournments for advancing their arguments. However, ultimately on 8.7.2002 they have withdrawn from the case and thereafter no body appeared for the opposite party. It appears that they were unable to support the order of the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, had withdrawn from the matter and thereafter, no body has come for...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Pathak Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2843; [2002(94)FLR1047]; (2002)3UPLBEC2315
Vineet Saran, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 31st July, 1985 passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad.2. Briefly, the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on 3.10.1967 as a fitter in the respondent-company, G.E.C. India Limited. Thereafter on 17.10.1968, the service of the petitioner was confirmed as fitter and on 3.9.1970 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector. While working as Junior inspector, the petitioner absented himself from 1.10.1982 to 26.11.1983. According to the petitioner, he had absented himself from duty because of illness but his absence for more than a year was admittedly without any leave application. Thus, on 26.11.1983, the service of the petitioner was terminated and in compliance with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer gave him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The said payment was made by the respondent No. 2 by...
Tag this Judgment!Bijendra NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2914; (2002)3UPLBEC2805
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri W. H. Khan, advocate learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner along with Sri R. C. Dwivedi as well as Sri M. S. Pipersenia, advocate, learned standing counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.2. It may be noted that the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management has been transposed as petitioner No. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 inspite of the fact that notice was given in the office of Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, as back as in the year 1998 and time was granted to the respondents for filing counter-affidavit. The respondents have not availed the opportunity afforded by the Court to rebut the averments made in the writ petition. Hence, the same are to be accepted for the purposes of present proceedings only.3. The petitioner No. 1 contends that he was appointed being found best available candidate for discharging duty as Physical instructor in the college called Ramji Sahai Degree...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. BhasIn Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN736(All)
ORDERWe have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Advocate for the revenue and have perused the records of the case.2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja & Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) wherein it has been held that firm of contractors (Assessee) formed for construction of dams and canals does not manufacture nor is engaged in production of articles, is not entitled to allowance on machinery and plant, we answer the questions under reference in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.3. Reference application stands disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Tehsildar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR61(All)
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the certificate of recovery dated 16.6.2001 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), and further for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to start the proceeding for recovery against the respondent No. 4 or its office bearers, and further for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. I to release the tractor forthwith, which is not mortgaged property with respondent No. 3 by the guarantors, and further for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to take any coercive method for recovery of loan against the petitioners till recovery proceedings against respondent No. 4 debtor were exhausted. 2. It js alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition that a society was formed under the Societies Registration Act, namely, Gayatri Gramo...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2684; [2002(95)FLR66]; (2002)3UPLBEC2699
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This petition was directed by the order dated 24th May, 2002 to be listed in the third week of July, 2002 along with listing application dated 16th March, 2002 and stay vacation application dated 28th October, 1990. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the same time may be consumed for final disposal of the writ petition which is likely to be consumed in deciding the stay vacation application. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee,i.e. Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar in the office of the Employment Exchange, Mughal Sarai, Varanasi by the Regional Employment Exchange Office vide order dated 22nd January, 1987, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition for the period upto 31st March, 1987. It is also stipulated in the appointment letter that the services of the petitioner can be terminated...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »