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.
Satish Rai and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ180
ORDERU.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 24-7-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 178 of 2002 holding that charges under Section 302, IPC be framed against the applicants.2. One Nagendra Rai lodged an FIR on 19-8-2001 against the applicants under Sections 308, 323, 504, IPC with the allegation that on 19-8-2001 at about 7-30 p.m. a quarrel was going on between the ladies of the families of the parties and Keshbhan Rai asked the applicant Satish Rai as to why he was not stopping ladies of his family. In it Satish Rai abusing him asked him to go away. In the meantime, the applicant Harish Rai also came and then Satish Rai started causing injuries on Keshbhan Rai with sword and Harish Rai to the complainant and Sanjai Rai by hockey stick. Keshbhan Rai became unconscious and fell down while head of Sanjai Rai was broken. The complainant received injuries on his left hand. Kesh...
indira Agnihotri (Kumari) Vs. Agra University, Through Its Vice-chance ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC156
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to product the entire answer-books of every paper of Sociology subject of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 of the M.A. (Previous) and final years 1994 and 1995 examinations.(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to give the correct marks on the answer-books of the petitioner and respondent No. 2.(iii) Issue any other writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.(iv) To award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.3. The contention of the petitioner is that she is well qualified and had obtained very good marks in High Schoo...
Lal Dhari Yadav Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC57
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel is present. I have perused the entire records.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 28.6.1997, Annexure-13 to the writ petition. He further prays for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the change of place of enquiry from Varanasi to Jaunpur Depot and that departmental proceedings may be initiated afresh thereafter.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 21.5.1996 by the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as UPSRTC). A domestic enquiry was held in pursuance of the charges of misconduct, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The charge against the petitioner was that on 18.9.1996 while on duty, he took Bus No. UAQ-9351 after completing all the necessary official formalities, from Kashipur depot and proceede...
Dhani Ram Verma Vs. Ganna Ayukta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3093
A.K. Yog, J. 1. This petition was filed on 19th March, 1998. 2. Order sheet of the case shows that it is listed on several occasions intermittently and time was granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit but, it appears, they have been better advised not to come up with their defence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is due to retire shortly and hence case be taken up. 4. Ms. Madhu Singh and Sri R.K. Chaudhary, advocates, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not present but still Court proposes to decide the petition since no counter-affidavit has been filed and none is on record, as on date before the Court.5. The other reason to decide the case finally, without waiting the counsels for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, is that the Court proposes to decide the case on the basis of undisputed facts on record. 6. Petitioner has filed several applications. 7. Application No. 27859 of 2001, Application No. 18380 of 2002, Application No. 27859 of 2001 an...
Ram Pratap Misra Vs. District Magistrate/Licensing Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3128
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is a licensee of a firearm, has been served with show cause notice by the licensing authority to show cause as to why his firearm should not be cancelled on the ground that he has allowed his firearm to be misused by his son in connection with Case Crime No. 70 of 1996 under Section 307, I.P.C. The petitioner submitted a reply of the aforesaid show cause notice denying the charges levelled against him. The licensing authority, after considering the charges levelled against him, arrived at a finding that from the allegations and reply submitted by the petitioner, misuse of firearm is admitted and, therefore, it is not in the public interest that petitioner's arm licence should remain with him. With this, the firearm licence has been cancelled by the licensing authority who filed an appeal which has been dismissed. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. L...
i.T.i. Ltd., Naini Officers Association and anr. Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3162; (2003)ILLJ1130All; (2002)3UPLBEC2324
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The challenge herein is to the roll-back of the age of retirement. The age of retirement of all the employees of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the I.T.I.) from the very inception was 58 years. The Vth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India recommendedthat the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees should be raised from 58 years to 60 years. Accepting the recommendation, the Government of India vide G.S.R. No. 248 (E), dated May 13, 1998, amended Fundamental Rules 56, by which the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees was raised to 60 years. As a sequel to the aforesaid decision, the Public Sector Undertakings under the control and supervision of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Department of Public Enterprises also raised the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 years to 60 years. The employees of the I.T.I., other than the workmen, are governed by the CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AN...
Akhileshwar Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3135; [2002(95)FLR313]
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for several reliefs. The first relief is that awrit of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to pay him the scale and other allowances equal to that of an officer of the same rank working in the National Textile Corporation (for short, the N.T.C.) treating the petitioner to be an employee of the said Corporation under the principle of equal pay for equal work. The second relief is that a direction be issued to the respondents to transfer the petitioner to any other unit of the N.T.C. and to permit him to work as a Deputy Chief Engineer and to pay him the difference of salary w.e.f. 1993 and the entire arrears of salary w.e.f. 29.9.1999. The third relief is that the order passed on his representation on 6th/10th July, 2001, be quashed. 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that Swadeshi Mining and . owned some sugar mills including Ganesh Sugar Mills, Anand Nagar. The petitione...
Keshav Prasad Tiwari Vs. Marwari Intermediate College Alias Maharaja A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3199
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1976, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1976 arising out of Original Suit No. 910 of 1972, Keshav Prasad v. Marwari Inter College, Deoria and Ors.3. The appellant has sought relief by means of this appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and to restore that of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's claim with costs.4. The brief facts of the case are enumerated below.5. The plaintiff-appellant was a teacher in Marwari Intermediate College alias Maharaja Agrasen Intermediate College, [hereinafter referred to as College). The plaintiff-appellant Keshav Prasad Tewari was appointed on 17.7.1960 as a confirmed teacher in the College. At the time of termination of his service, he was placed under suspension on 14.8.1965 and was served the charge-sheet. T...
iqbal Ahmad Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3263
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and perused the records.2. Majidia Islamia Inter College, Allahabad (hereinafter called as the Institution). It is a minority institution and is recognised under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act.3. The petitioner was appointed in C.T. grade in the Institution on 17.7.1972 for teaching English subject. One Noor Ahmad Khan L.T. grade teacher, who was teaching the same subject to High School classes, went on long leave and thereafter resigned from his post in the year 1977.4. Under Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, a teacher, who is working in C.T. grade and having put in five years continuous substantive service, ts entitled for promotion, provided he possesses prescribed minimum qualification for teaching the subjects required in L.T. grade.5. The qualification for teaching English as a subject in High School classes is that th...
Chandra Shekhar Singh Vs. Shiksha Prasarini Sabha Jahurabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3261; [2002(95)FLR352]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This second appeal has been filed by Chandra Shekhar Singh. plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1987 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1983. The appellant filed Suit No. 15 of 1975 challenging his termination order dated 15th December, 1974.3. The appellant was employed as a clerk in Basic Junior High School and his services were terminated by the management of defendant school, hence he filed suit praying that the order of termination was illegal and void and that he continues to be in service. The trial court decreed the suit by Judgment and decree dated 15.3.1983. On appeal being filed by defendant, the trial court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, hence this second appeal.4. During the pendency of the appeal, in this Court a compromise was filed on 30.3.1998 by the parties, which was sent for verificat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »