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.
Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2887; [2002(95)FLR181]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parlies and perused the records. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a workman and the dispute in this case regarding suspension cannot be decided without going into findings of fact. This matter can only be adjudicated after taking oral as well as documentary evidence, which can only be done by the labour court. 3. The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to raise the dispute before the labour court as has been held in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Union Lucknow and Ors., 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 UPLBEC 898. 4. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Conciliation Officer to refer the dispute within one month under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court. The labour court will fix a date for R.D.I, within six weeks from the date of receipt of reference. Thereafter the case will proceed on day to day basis under Rule 12 (7) of the U...
State of U.P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3281; [2002(95)FLR720]; (2002)3UPLBEC2404
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that instead of deciding the stay vacate application, the matter itself may be heard and decided on merits, therefore, the matter is being heard today. 2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-employer have challenged the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 29.9.1997, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, passed in Adjudication Case No. 108 of 1997. The following dispute was referred to by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication before the labour court : ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed JhQqjdku vgen iq Jh fulkj vgen dks lsok;sa fnukd 31-1-1991 ls lekIr fd;k tkukmfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lacaf/krJfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k o frfFk lfgr ** 3. After issuance of notice to the learned counsel for both the parties, they e...
Rajey Alias Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ167
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner has challenged a show cause notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. This Court in Writ Petition No. 4142 of 2002, Gore Lal v. State of U.P. decided in 31-7-2002, has held that this Court ordinarily will not entertain a writ petition against a show cause notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act because no adverse order has been passed. This Court has distinguished the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U.P. reported in 1999 U.P. Cri R417 : (1999 All LJ 1845) and the decision in the case of Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981 All LJ 897). This Court relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 (8) JT 331 Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 691 (Vide Para 10) which held that a writ petition against a show cause notice should not ordinarily be entertained.3. In view of the above decision...
In Re: Shekharaj Hotel (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]39SCL654(All)
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J. 1. Notices sent on 14-2-2002, to respondent-company returned undelivered, upon which orders were made on 5-7-2002, in pursuance of which, the company petition has been advertised in daily newspaper 'Pioneer' published from Lucknow, on 18-7-2002, daily newspaper, 'Aaj' published from Varanasi dated 16-7-2002, and in the Official Gazette of U.P. dated 27-7-2002. The newspapers and Gazette in Original have been filed by Sri R.P. Agarwal along with an application, which may be kept on record. The service of notices upon respondent-company, is, thus, deemed to be sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-company. No other application or objection has been filed.2. The respondent-company is engaged in and running a hotel known as Shekharaj Hotel situate in plot No. 292-S. 21/116, Englishia Line, Sikhraul, Varanasi. According to the averments made in company petition, petitioner-company advanced a loan to respondent-company to discharge its liabil...
Barsati Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3048
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This is the second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10,1982 passed by Sri Raman Prakash, the then IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1980 allowing the appeal of defendants-respondents and dismissing the Suit (No. 9 of 1979) of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was for permanent injunction.2. The following question of law has been formulated in this second appeal :'Whether the learned first appellate court has erred in not granting the relief to the plaintiff-appellant although it has upheld the findings of the trial court on the issue of possession over the house and sehan in suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant?'3. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the records.4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned lower appellate court has erred in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant although the lower appellate court has co...
Sahana Soap Works and ors. Vs. Kanpur Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC369(All)
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. This misc appeal is against the order of the trial court granting interim injunction restraining the defendants-appellants. The restraint is against using a trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark 'GHARI', in respect of Soap, Detergent powder etc. I have heard learned counsel for both sides at length.2. It is clear from the record that the plaintiffs as well as defendants are using wrappers for the same type of products manufactured by them; and the wrappers are not only deceptively similar but except for an extra careful observer they are identical in respect of design, get-up, colour scheme etc.3. This much of similarity could not possibly by co-incidental. Obviously, either the plaintiffs or the defendants have copied the wrapper including the trade mark. Considering the volume and period of business of the parties discussed below, prima facie the plaintiff would have no motive for such an act.4. In the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents, th...
Smt. Matina Khatoon (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Prescribed Authority and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1221
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 16.12.1985 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 1).2. The dispute relates to a house situated in Mohalla Qureshi, Amroha, district Moradabad, detailed in the release application mentioned hereinafter. The said house has hereinafter been referred to as 'the house in question'.3. It appears that a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 as landlords in respect of the house in question agatnst Smt. Matina Khatoon, the tenant. The said release application was rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority by the order dated 17.11.1981.4. Against the said order of the learned Prescribed Authority, Moradabad, dated 17.11.1981, respondent Nos. 2 to 10 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the U. P. Ac...
SahabuddIn Alias Shabboo Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4579
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. A Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant today and a copy where of was served upon learned A.G.A. on 7-3-2002. It be taken on record. No counter-affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A. till date.2. The contention in this case is that though the applicant was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, yet bail was refused to him on inadequate grounds. This applicant was declared juvenile by the order of the Principal Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 1-11 -2001. The main ground for rejecting the benefit of being declared a juvenile and consequent release on bail was denied to the applicant on the ground that the entire episode involving the applicant including his confession and the discovery of the dead body at his pointing out will endanger the prosecution case and there is possibility of his tampering the evidence.3. This applicant Was already declared juvenile by the order dated l-11-2001. Nearly...
Deo Kumar Ojha Vs. Board of Directors, U.P. State Warehousing Corporat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2992; (2002)3UPLBEC2646
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure-12 to the writpetition) passed by respondent No. 2, order dated 16.5.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 and for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioner.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length at the admission stage.3. The petitioner was Senior Warehouse Superintendent. He remained in-charge of several godowns. He used to look after those godowns through godown keepers. The responsibility of the Senior Warehouse Superintendent and godown keepers are laid down in the order dated 1.5.1978 issued by the Managing Director, U. P. State Warehousing Corporation. During his tenure as Senior Warehouse Superintendent/ Warehouse-in-charge, Ghazipur, it was found that there was some shortage in the stock of food grains in the godowns, which were in his charge. Consequent...
Harishchand Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2964
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two applications being 108796 of 2002 and 108004 of 2002 have come up for orders today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that instead of deciding these applications, the matter should be heard and decided finally, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection, inasmuch as the objection raised by the respondents is that in fact, the present writ petition against the order passed by the revisional court is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the wrong impression and wrong legal advice, his client was advised to file a revision against the order passed by the trial court dated 11.3.1998 and he, therefore, filed a revision. Even the revision was filed beyond time along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The revisional court vide its order dated 27.9.1999, has rejected the application for condonation o...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »