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.
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Nagar Palika and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3144
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This petition was heard and dismissed by me on 16.7,2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition. 2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the relief that the order dated 23rd August, 1990, passed by the respondent No. 2, Executive Officer. Nagar Pallka, Azamgarh be quashed with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in regular service with all benefits ; and that the petitioner be paid regular pay scale as is being paid to other regularly appointed employees. 3. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed in the Octroi Department on daily wages and has worked with effect from 1.10.1989 to 31.7.1990 with artificial breaks. The petitioner has neither annexed any order of appointment nor it has been stated that the petitioner has worked for how many days. The impugned ...
Sidh Nath and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2695
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 9-1-2002 gassed by respondent No.2 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 26-2-2002 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).2. It appears that the plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed a suit being Suit No. 1124 of 1988 against the defendants-petitioners, inter alia, for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 10-2-1976. A written statement dated 10th April, 1996 was filed on behalf of the defendants petitioners wherein, inter alia, an objection was raised that the suit was barred by limitation.3. It further appears that Issue No. 3 has been framed on the question of limitation. The defendants-petitioners filed anapplication No. 126 GA praying that Issue No. 3 be decided as preliminary issue. The trial Court (Respondent No. 2) by its order dated 9-1-2002 rejected the said appl...
Keshav Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC656
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who is an ex-army man, was heard by me and was allowed vide order dated 16th July, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition claimed for the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in a sedentary job ;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay disability pension to the petitioner on completion of his tenure of service ;(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner from the date of his discharge till the date of his completionof service or reinstatement, whichever is earlier ;(d) issue any other writ...
Amarnath Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2219
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri A. Dwivedi, petitioner in person and Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. Learned Standing Counsel at the very outset stated that Respondent No. 1 is a proforma respondent - hence respondent No. 1 has no interest in the Us and no Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.3. A Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Petitioner in reply, has filed Rejoinder Affidavit. It may be noted that a Supplementary Affidavit, copy of which was served on the learned Counsel for contesting respondents on 21.8.2000, is on record (filed in Court on 22.5.2001). Contesting respondents have not filed heir reply (supplementary Counter- Affidavit) to rebut the facts mentioned therein.4. Along with Supplementary Affidavit petitioner has filed copy of U.P. Co operative Spinning Mills (Centralized) Service Rul...
Sanjai Kumar Vs. Dy. Director General (Nce), Directorate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2748
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 Judge ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagran Prakashan (Varanasi) (P)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(All.)243
1. These two appeals filed by the Department are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The appeal is directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th Oct., 1992. The following grounds of appeal have been taken : "1. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,25,432 following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. (1990) 182 ITR 439 (Mad) whereas the facts of the case were not identical. Moreover, the assessee-company has succeeded the firm's lock stock and barrel basis' as a going concern and receipt expenses relating to pre-succession period has actually been received in the hands of successor in business only during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration." The partnership firm, M/s Jagaran Prakashan, Varanasi has been carrying on business as publishers of daily newspaper, namely, "Dainik Jagran". By an agreement dt. 31st March, 1989, the business of p...
Committee of Management, Shiksha Prasar Samiti and anr. Vs. Deputy Reg ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2393; (2002)2UPLBEC1866
S.K. Singh, J. 1.Challenged in this petition is the order dated 27.6.2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers as conferred under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act for holding elections to elect office bearers of the society.2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at admission stage.3. There is a society known as Shiksha Prasar Samiti registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Mohammadabad Gohna. district Mau. It has its registered bye laws which govern the management of the society. Under the bye laws the terms of the Committee of Management of the society is provided. The aforesaid society runs an institution known as National Inter College, Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau. It is claimed that renewal of the society has taken place for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2000. It appears that on 6.11.2001 respondent No. 2 made a complaint before the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits to...
Kailash Singh Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2631
S.K. Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Shri A. K. Dixit, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri S. P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that documents of the vehicle has been surrendered on 29.1.2000. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure-1 to the. writ petition reveals that said document ts only an application seeking no objection certificate. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has complied with the provision of Rule 22 of U. P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rule, 1998, wherein the procedure has been prescribed in the case of withdrawing the vehicle from use.3. It is well-settled that where a provision is made in a statute prescribing the particular procedure, that particular procedure has to be followed and in the event of non-compliance of that procedure, no benefit can be claimed by a person. 4. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.6.200...
Ram Gopal Yadav Vs. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2685; [2002(95)FLR59]; (2002)3UPLBEC2079
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that petitioner was not given opportunity before terminating his services by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Agra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any statutory provision whereby it can be said that any rights of the petitioner are affected by the impugned order. 3. The present impugned order is only a communication to the Assistant Registrar and not the termination order. The impugned order only says that since the services of the petitioner are already terminated by the employer-society, petitioner is not entitled for any salary. It appears that this order has been passed by the authority concerned on some representation made by the petitioner. In my opinion, the impugned order cannot be challenged on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitionerbecause the case was adjudicated upon by the Assistant Regist...
Braham Shanker Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2791A; [2002(94)FLR949]; (2002)2UPLBEC1943
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to count the petitioners ad hoc service from 16.2.1973 to 4.5.1981 towards his total length of service for preparing the seniority list. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In para 3 of the petition, it is stated that 30 posts were advertised for making ad hoc appointments on Group II posts under U. P. Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules, 1977. The petitioner applied and was selected amongst others vide order dated 7.2.1973, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined on 16.2.1973 as Soil Conservation Inspector in pursuance of the above appointment letter. 4. In para 9 of the petition, it is stated that the Group II posts were advertised by the U. P. Public Service Commission for regular appointment in 1977-78 and the petitioner applied and was duly selected and was given appointment letter dated 4.5.1981 vide Annexure-4 to the petition. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »