Allahabad Court August 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.
Mussarrat Ali Shah and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3151; (2003)1UPLBEC55a
M. Katju and K.N. Sinha, JJ.1. Admittedly, the petitioners areguarantors for a term loan of Rs. 72.22 lacs taken by Shah Nursing Home and Polyclinic sanctioned by the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Limited, Lucknow and, as such, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged dues are not recoverable from the petitioners under Section 3 of the U. P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.2. It is well-settled that petitioners, as guarantors, are liable to pay the impugned amount, their liability being co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The petitioners are not disputing this position. The petitioners cannot take advantage of technicalities of law. In a writ petition, the petitioners have not only to show violation of law but have also to prove that equity is in their favour. This is because writ is a discretionary remedy. In the present case, there is no equity in favour of the petitioners since they do not deny thei...
Virendra Kumar Kulshreshtha Vs. Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Siksha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3238
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is covered by the judgment in Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State Government of U. P., 2000 (2) AWC 1020 : 2000 (1) UPESC 291, in which It has been held that the services of a peon appointed temporarily under dying-in-harness rule cannot be terminated under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Employees (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, since the appointment under dying-in-harness rule should not be temporary or ad hoc. It has further been held that passing of termination order against such an employee is unjustified and violative of principle of natural justice.3. The Court in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Sharma's case (supra) has held as under :'The impugned order showsthat the authority passing theimpugned order has relied uponthe provision of U. P. TemporaryGovernment Employees(Termination of Service) Rules,1975. As stated above and notdisputed on beh...
Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3280
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of his termination dated 25.1.1986, Annexure-9 to the writ petition.3. The petitioner was working as peon in Ashok Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harkhapur, district Jaunpur. He was charge-sheeted by the Management on 31.7.1985 and 13.9.1985. It is alleged that the services were terminated without holding any enquiry on 20.3.1986 by the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval for termination of the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.1986, Annexure-14 to the writ petition and as such there is no infirmity in the order of termination dated 25.1.1986 and 20.3.1986.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court. Principal, Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and Ors., 20OO (1) AWC 831 : (2OO...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Secretary, Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3188
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. This petition is directed against the action of respondent No. 1 in not paying salary of Personal Assistant (Stenographer) to the petitioner since 28.6.1985, i.e., the alleged date from which the petitioner is said to have been discharging duties of the said post. 2. The facts of the case are that after 1974, no examination was held by the Public Service Commission, U. P., Allahabad to fill up the available posts of Personal Assistants. Since the petitioner knew short-hand and was working as Lower Division Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1,350-2,200 in the office of the Secretary, Public Service Commission, U. P., Allahabad, he was directed to discharge the duties of Personal Assistant. It is alleged that in view of a note dated 25.6.1985 to the Secretary, the Joint Secretary made a request to allow the petitioner to work with him as he knew short-hand, and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner started doing the work of Personal Assistant in the Commission. The pa...
Km. Rekha Rani Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3190
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for the following reliefs : (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner duly selected and substantially appointed Class-IV employee of the institution and to pay salary to the petitioner regularly from the date of her initial appointment; (ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iii) to award costs of this petitionto the petitioner. 3. The case set up by the petitioner as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 26th July, 1994, as Class-IV employee in the institution concerned. The petitioner has appended the letter of appointment issued by the Principal...
Jai NaraIn and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ168
S.K. Agarwal J.1. This appeal was filed by Jai Narain, Ramesh, Rama Kant, Sajiwan Lal, Afat Lal, Vijai Pal, Jai Narain and Rajjan Lal against their convictions and consequent sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 31-8-80. All the appellants were convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were conviction and sentenced under Section 323/149, IPC to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Mat Lal and Ramesh were also sentenced under Section 148, IPC to undergo 1 1/2 year's rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Jai Narain, Rama Kant, Sajiwan Lal, Vijai Pal, Jai Narain and Rajjan were converted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently. One of the appellant Jai Narain died during the pendency of this appeal. His appeal, therefore, has abated.2. Brief facts as disclosed in the FIR are that Avdhesh Kumar used to work at the flour Mill of one Shiv Das wh...
Devashish Mukherji and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3000; (2002)3UPLBEC2792
A.K. Yog, J. 1. DevashishMukherji and Ajai Kumar Banerji, the two petitioners, have come up before this Court through present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Allahabad (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) whereby he refused to accord approval to their ad hoc appointment (apart from one more - namely, Shiv Kumar Pandey) on the ground that Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) being omitted vide Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendments) Act, 1992, (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993): the management had no right to make ad hoc appointment and the power vested in a selection committee contemplated under amended Section 16 of the Principal Act, 1982 (as incorporated by virtue of Section 11 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993). 2. According to the Distri...
Rajpal Singh Vs. Devendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2947
Janardan Sahai, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and house tax and water tax in respect of a shop, the defendant has filed this revision. The shop originally belonged to Chandra Mohan Sahai Bhatnagar. The plaintiffs case is that by a sale deed dated 19,3.1982, the shop was sold by Chandra Mohan Sahai Bhatnagar to the plaintiff ; that the defendant was a sitting tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month in addition to a sum of Rs. 19 which he was liable to pay as house tax and water tax ; that the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff despite having knowledge of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant had purchased other property from the plaintiff ; that notice dated 20.5.1990 was served upon defendant on 21.5.1990 to which a wrong reply was given in reply notice sent by defendant through his counsel denying the title of the plaintiff and defendant failed to pay the rent whereupon the plaintiff gave a reply dated 28.5.1990. T...
Smt. Sahina Parveen Vs. Director of Education (Madhyamik) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2990
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Senior Advocate, Sri Ashok Khare regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner is not the affected party, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order passed by her superiors.2. My attention was brought to the fact that the petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 18.1.2002, whereby the transfer order of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were cancelled, has filed Writ Petition No. 4799 of 2002. The said writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Director of Education, who shall decide the representation within a period of three months. The Director, in compliance of the directions of this Court, considered the matter and rejected the representation by an order dated 23.5.2002 upholding the cancellation of the transfer order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is e...
Km. Meera and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2729
ORDERBhanwar Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying for quashing of the First Information Report (Annexure 1).2. Shortly stated, the petitioner's case is that Promod Kumar, son of the petitioners 3 and 4 was married to the informant Basant Lal's daughter Anita in the month of July, 2000. No dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or thereafter. Promod Kumar and Anita could not carry harmonious relationship between the two. Their nuptial knot started slacking due to the unceremonious interference of Anita's Jija (sister's husband), namely Pyare Lal, who started visiting Anita and he carried on with his visits despite restrictions imposed by Promod Kumar. At times, Pyare Lal misbehaved with the petitioners. Promod Kumar's complaint lodged with the police regarding misbehaviour of Pyare Lal did not move the police to take any action. Pyare Lal became so devil that he came to the petitioner's house on June 28, 2002 and carried away forcibly ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »