Allahabad Court July 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.
Brijesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Poonam Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2591
A.K. Yog, J.1. Brijesh Kumar Gupta; applicant before this Court, has filed the present Transfer Application under Sections 23(3) and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21A(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, praying for transferring Divorce Petition No. 367 of 2001, Smt. Poonam Gupta v. Brijesh Gupta, under Sections 13 and 27, Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut to the Court of VIIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, where Matrimonial Petition No. 2A of 2000, Brijesh Kumar Gupta v. Smt Poonam Gupta, under Section 12. Hindu Marriage Act (to declare the marriage between the parties as void) is said to be already pending since before the filing of the aforementioned divorce petition by the wife at Meerut.2. In para 10 of the affidavit, filed in support of the transfer application, the applicant, Brijesh Kumar Gupta has admitted that he had received notice of the said Matrimonial Divorce Petition No. 367 of 2001 (Annexure-2 to the affid...
Mirza Asif Ali Beg Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2401; (2002)3UPLBEC2473
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Above mentioned writ petitions were connected under orders of the Court dated 19.7.2001 in Writ Petition No. 26115 of 2001 since petitioners in the instant petitions had applied in pursuance to an advertisement made by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur in the year 1996 for appointment on the posts of Stenographers and Clerks (Class III posts) governed by the provisions of The Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (read with the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices, 1950) to the extent held applicable by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1043, wherein it held that Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Rules, 1947, stood impliedly substituted by Rules 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Rules, 1950 read with its Schedule under the heading Judicial (A) Department (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1947 and Rules, 1950 respectively).2. According to the case of t...
Trilok Nath Mishra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2804; (2002)3UPLBEC2675
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. These writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates of the Combined Lower Subordinate Examination, 1998, held by U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad challenge office memorandum dated 15th November, 1999 issued by Secretary, Karmik Anubhag-4, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, issuing direction to give up preparation of waiting list and reshuffling, in all the selections to be made by U. P. Public Service Commission, except where there is single post in the cadre.2. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, for petitioners ; Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for U. P. Public Service Commission, as well as learned standing counsel for State Government.3. Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are, that an advertisement No. A-2/E-1/98-99 was issued on 6th September, 1998 for holding Combined Lower Subordinate State Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1998. The petitioners, who are eligible and qualified, applied and appeared in the...
Cantonment Board Vs. St. John's School and Anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2795; (2002)2UPLBEC1892
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Cantonment Board, Meerut has filed this writ petition challenging judgment and order dated 23.11.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Meerut by which he has allowed an appeal under Section 84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (in short 'the Act') setting aside notice dated 24.3.1988 levying property tax on Bungalow No. 117 Bank Street, Meerut, occupied by St. John's School, Meerut (in short 'the School').2. I have heard Sri Samir Sharma appearing for petitioner and Sri Vivek Chaudhary for respondent.3. The Executive Officer, Cantonment Board issued notice dated 27.6.1987 to St. John's School, Meerut to revise assessment of tax on property No. 117, Bank Street, Meerut under Section 68 of the Act. The Principal of the school in his objection to the notice, stated that the entire building is used for educational purposes, and is thus exempt from paying any tax whatsoever. No house tax can be proposed on the said building. He further stated that no additional building h...
Haneef Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2697
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.1.1999, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided that case ex parte, he, therefore, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order under Order IX, Rule 13, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, has rejected the aforesaid application under Order IX, Rule 13, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainabil...
Khushi Ram Vs. Adhishashi Abhiyanta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2812; [2002(94)FLR875]; (2002)3UPLBEC2701
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri S.U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed by the letter of appointment dated 13th February, 1987 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) as Nalkoop Operator at Tube-well No, 165 in the district of Mainpuri.3. A perusal of the letter of appointment clearly demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner is purely provisional and temporary with a further rider that it can be terminated at any time without any notice. The letter of appointment further says that in any case the term of appointment will not be extended beyond three years. It is on the strength of this letter of appointment the petitioner was functioning as Tube-well operator.4. By the order dated 25th November, 1991 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that Tube-well No. 165 on which the petitioner was employed has since been abandoned ...
Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Tekchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All299
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 11-1-2001 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by learned First Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad.2. It appears that Original Suit No. 20 of 1984 was filed by one Tek Chand againstRam Bal and others. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 by VIth Addl. Munsif, Ghaziabad.Thereupon, the plaintiff, Tek Chand (respondent No. 1 herein) filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1988. The saidCivil Appeal No. 198 of 1988 was allowed bythe learned IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge,Ghaziabad by his judgment and order dated30-1-1991 whereby the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 was set aside, and thematter was remanded for being decidedafresh.3. During the pendency of the suit after remand, it appears that Hemi, son of Raje (defendant No. 8 in the suit) died, and an application dated 18-8-2000 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) wa...
Smt. Raj Kali and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2605; (2002)2UPLBEC1940
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioners have alleged that there is an award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in their favour but they have not been paid the amount awarded to them.2. A large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court praying that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or by the Judge on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act should be directed to be paid to the petitioner. In our opinion, this Court should not entertain these writ petitions because there is an alternative remedy under Section 31 or 26 (as the case may be) of the Land Acquisition Act.3. If the amount has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, then the awardee has a right to apply under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for payment of the amount awarded. On the other hand, if the amount has been awarded under Section 18 by the Judge on reference, then there is an alternative re...
Deputy Director General (Ncc) and anr. Vs. Sanjay Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2640
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. This special appeal is directed against Judgment of learned single Judge dated 11.2.2002 allowing the writ petition, where the learned single Judge held that the appointment of writ petitioner having been made on compassionate ground, the same cannot be treated to be a temporary appointment and as such, the order dated 5.12.1996 terminating his services under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules of 1975. is set aside.2. It is not in dispute that before passing the termination order, no show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to explain his misconduct, if any, irregularity and unauthorised absence. It is true that if the appointment is confirmed, there cannot be simplicitor termination. On the allegation against the petitioner which has been noted by learned single Judge in his judgment, it was open for the respondents to have held an enquiry against the petitioner. The learned single Jud...
Ashok Kumar Rice Oil and Flour Mills and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: III(2002)BC667
Janardan Sahai, J.1. When the matter was taken up a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable as an appeal lies under Section 20, of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In order to determine the question a brief reference to the facts of the case may be made. A suit for recovery of money was filed by the State Bank of India against the petitioner. The suit was decreed exparte by the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1994. An application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court, which was pending and was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1996. The decree was put to execution in the Civil Court on 30.5.1995. The execution proceeding as well as the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. were transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debit Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 13.6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »