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.
Dev Sahay Vs. Hon'ble High Court and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2888; (2002)3UPLBEC2795
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the Allahabad High Court Advocates' Clerks (Regulation and Conduct) Rules, 1997. 2. The High Court regulates the working of the Advocates' Clerks and has laid down qualification for the purpose of registration in the Registry. Chapter 26 of the High Court Rules, 1952, had provided qualification for registration of the clerks. This has been amended by Allahabad High Court Advocates' Clerks (Registration and Conduct) Rules, 1997. Rule 3 provides for preparation and maintenance of Roll. Rule 4 prohibits a person from working as an advocate's clerk unless his name is entered in the Roll. Rule 5 provides for qualification for registration as a clerk of an advocate. Rule 6 lays down the conditions for disqualification for enrolment. Rule 7 provides the manner in which the panel of the clerks will be prepared. Rule 8 provides the terms and conditions of engagement of the clerk by an advocate. Rule 9 provides regarding application for registrat...
Vivek Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All202
ORDERBhanwar Singh, J.1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of Vivek Kumar aged 13 years by his mother Smt. Meenakshi Devi with the contention that she being a natural and legal guardian of her son is entitled to his custody. 2. Shortly stated, the petitioner's case is that after her husband's death, the opposite parties, who are the brother, grandmother and the sister respectively of her husband, forcibly started living at her residence No. 9/217, Indira Nagar, Lucknow which was allotted in her husband's name during her lifetime. They misbehaved with her and threatened to take away her both the children if she would offer any resistance to their dictates. It was in these circumstances that she was forced to leave her husband's house on 28-6-2001 but she was not allowed to take along her son Vivek, although she could manage to carry with her another son Abhishek Kumar. She moved an application to the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow for providing ...
Advance Pipes Limited Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC353(All)
R.B. Misra, J.1. By this writ petition the order dated June 28, 2002 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal has been challenged for suitable order or directions directing the Trade Tax Tribunal to continue the order dated September 27, 2001 and staying the recovery of amount which was only operative till March 25, 2002.Heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of at this stage finally 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 case are that the petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of pipes. The petitioner is a registered company both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, in short called 'the Act' as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment orders f...
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2448; (2002)2UPLBEC1755
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. The challenge herein is to the validity of the impugned order dated 23.1.2002 whereby the selection of the petitioner (empanelled candidate No. 1) for retailed outlet at Atraulia in District Azamgarh has been cancelled on a complaint made by the respondent Smt. P. Pandey. The operative part of the Impugned order has been annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition whereas the entire order passed by the Dealer Selection Board (in short 'D.S.B.') has been filed along with Civil Misc. Amendment Application dated 25.2.2002 which was allowed vide order dated 16.3,2002.2. It is not disputed that the location at Atraulia in District Azamgarh was advertised for retail outlet dealership of B.P.C.L. for the open category candidates. One of the essential conditions of eligibility, as per office memorandum No. 39012/1/1999-I.O.C., Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi dated 9th October, 2000, a copy of which has been annexed as...
Vidya Prakashan Mandir Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2473; 2003CriLJ202; (2002)3UPLBEC2641
Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed for quashing the F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 317 of 2001 police station Transport Nagar, Meerut against the petitioners by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, respondent No. 2 under Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Course Books Act. 1978 and Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. 2. According to the allegations of the first information report the complainant had received information from the District Magistrate, Meerut, that he had received complaint that M/s, Vidya Prakashan Kendra Ltd. Meerut, is publishing books for which they have no permission from the Department. Additional City Magistrate, Meerut, had raided the godown of the publisher and seized the following books :1. Sanskrit Parichayika--Class 9 2. Sanskrit Parichaylka--Class 10 3. Intermediate English Prose 4. Intermediate English Poetry 5. Rang Bharti 3. It is alleged that publication of these books was unauthorised as they were not allotted...
Sanjay Ayurvedic Pharmacy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2617
S.P. Srivastava and K.N. Sinha, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1 as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioner's claim to be the manufacturers of Ayurvedic medicines. They feel aggrieved by the provisions brought into force by Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Rules, 2000. These rules were published in the Gazette extraordinary on 23.6.2000. but were to come into force after two years. These amendments. It is claimed, drastically amend the provisions contained in Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The notification publishing the aforesaid amended rules indicates that a draft of the proposed rules was published on 24.5.1999 inviting objections and suggestions from the public. After considering those objections and suggestions, the Central Government decided to amend the Rules and enforce the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Rules, 2000.4. In the a...
Bimlesh Sharma Vs. Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2818; (2003)1UPLBEC280
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri S.S. Tripathi, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Mehrotra, advocate on behalf of contesting respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. Respondents were granted time for filing counter-affidavit. Meanwhile a supplementary-affidavit was filed and respondents were required to file counter-affidavit/ supplementary - counter - affidavit annexing therewith extract photo stat copy of the Service Book in which date of birth of the petitioner's husband (Lakshmi Narain Sharma) was recorded.3. Counter-affidavit and a supplementary-counter-affidavit have been filed today in the Court which have been accepted and taken on record.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not propose to file rejoinder-affidavit/ supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit and argued the case on merit.5. Hence the Court proceeds to hear the case on merit and decide it as per record before it.6. Petitioner, Smt. Bimlesh Sharma, is the wife of deceased Lakshmi Narain Sharma. Sh...
Raja Ram and ors. Vs. Mukhtiar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2883
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1985 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. arising out of Original Suit No. 43 of 1978, Raja Ram and Ors. v. Mukhtiar and Ors.3. The appellants are alleged to be owners and in possession of part of land of plot No. 821 measuring 7-1/2 Biswas through a sale deed executed by Harchand and Harpat In which the mud, Akhores, Neem trees, hand pump and Koori of the appellants are situated. It was alleged that the defendants have no concern of whatsoever with the disputed land and they wanted to take forcible possession of the said land. It was further case of the appellants that Likhi, father of the defendant No. 3 got executed a forged sale deed dated 15.12.1958 showing execution by Balloo son of Jahangir and in fact Balloo son of Jahangir had already disposed of his share in plot No. 837/2 of 13 biswansi vide sale deed dat...
M.L. Chaurasia and ors. Vs. C.V. Innes and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1911
S.K. Singh, J.1. The prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ tn the nature of quo warranto calling upon the Respondent No. 1 to show the authority by which he is holding office of the Principal of Girls High School and College, Allahabad. A further prayer is that by issuing a writ of mandamus the Respondent No. 1 restrained from acting as Principal of Girls High School and College, Allahabad.2. After exchange of pleadings, when the matter was taken upon, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondents that this petition is not maintainable on various grounds as will be dealt with later on and therefore, this petition be dismissed without going into the merit of the matter.3. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A.D. Saunders, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents, have been heard.4. Sri A.D. Saunders representing the respondents as stated above, relying upon the decisions namely (1) Manager St. Thomas U.P. Kerala ...
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2803
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by one and same petitioner involving common question of law, hence, they are being decided together by a common Judgment.2. The petitioner is a handicapped person. An advertisement, was published in the year 1999, inviting the applications from eligible candidates for Special B.T.C. Training for the purpose of making appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the reservation would be made as per the Government policy. However, in the Proforma application form, Column No. 7 related for claiming the benefit of reservation pertaining to the candidates of reserved category. In the column, only the categories mentioned were Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes, Ex-Army Men and Dependent of Freedom Fighters. But, there was no column pertaining to physically handicapped persons. The petitioner did not mention tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »