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.
Rajmani Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3206
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Prakash Rai, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the parties have agreed that writ petition itself be finally disposed of at this stage.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2nd July, 2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) by which petitioner's claim for regularisation in service has been rejected. Further prayer has been made seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to deny the continuity of service and payment of regular salary on the post of clerk in the office of respondent No. 2 and to release withheld salary to the petitioner for the period between April, 1991 to 21st January, 1993.4. The facts of the case briefly stated are ; petitioner was appointed by order dated 2nd January, 1991 of Inspector General (Registration), U. P., Allahabad as daily wage clerk...
Rachhpal Singh Vs. District Magistrate/Administrator, Kisan Sahkari Ch ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3277; [2002(95)FLR193]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as Welghment Clerk in Kisan Sahkarl Sugar Mill Limited which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.6.1984 in which serious allegations have been levelled against him. The charge-sheet has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet and after enquiry, his services were terminated by the General Manager of the Mill vide order dated 2nd February, 1985.3. The petitioner filed an appeal and was also given opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared for personal hearing but declined to say anything. The appeal of the petitioner thereafter was rejected vide order dated 7.11.1986. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the aforesaid orders dated 2nd February, 1985 and 7.11.1986 impugned ...
i.G. Shoes Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC496(All)
R.B. Misra, J.This trade tax revision has been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called 'the Act') against the order dated July 26, 2002 passed in Appeal No, 148 of 2002 (2002-2003) under Section 13-A(6) of the Act.1. Heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant/ revisionist as well as Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent and with the consent of the parties this revision is disposed of finally at this stage finally under the second proviso to Rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision are that the applicant carried business of manufacture and sale of shoes for which latex (rubber) was the raw materials and 42 drums of same, valued Rs. 2,49,690 were being imported from out of the State which was examined at the check-post on April 25, 2002 and the person in-charge of the vehicle/driver produced documents including 'form ...
Viendra Singh Pawar Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR232]; (2002)3UPLBEC2409
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The petitionerr is aggrieved by non-payment of Bonus, extra pay and encashment of leave on his reinstatement with back wages and all other emoluments including the promotional benefits.3. The petitioner States that he has made representations on 13th October. 1993 and 18th May, 1994 to the authority concerned but no action has been taken on the aforesaid representations. The other Sub-Inspectors, who are similarly situated, have been given the selection grade and super-selection grade, but the petitioner is being discriminated by the respondents.4. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation stating the aforesaid grievances, to respondent No. 2 within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, who shall decide the same within three months thereafter, in accordance with law by areasoned order....
Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2911; [2002(95)FLR233]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. By means of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Work Meth, on Class IV post in Public Works Department, Banda and to pay him regular salary admissible to a Class IV employee. It has further been prayed that he should not be removed from the service on artificial grounds.2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Work Meth, a Muster Roll employee in Public Works Department, Banda and had worked upto 31.12.1980. It is alleged that in order to deprive the benefits of regularisation, the petitioner was desequated as daily wager and was attached with contractors. The claim of the petitioner is that since he has completed 8 years of service and has worked more than 240 days in each calendar year, he is entitled for being made regular. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is alleged that jun...
Lawyers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shri Krishna Grih Nirman ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2890
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The plaintiff of the suit has filed this revision against the order dated 31,10.1994 passed by VIIIth Additional Civil Judge, Agra in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1994, allowing the application of the respondent No. 1 under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. and setting aside the ex parte decree dated 7.3.1987 in Original Suit No. 103 of 1983. 2. The applicant society filed Suit No. 103 of 1983 against the opposite parties. The above suit was decreed ex parte on 7.3.1987. Thereafter the opposite party No. 1 moved an application for setting aside above ex parte decree on the grounds, inter alia, that the summons of the suit had not been served upon it. The summons were neither tendered by the post man or Process Server upon it, nor it were ever refused to accept. The plaintiff/applicant obtained ex parte decree by concealing the above facts and alleged service of summons on the opposite party No. 1, was said to have been effected through publication in a newspaper, which was not dail...
State of U.P. Vs. Harphool and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2884
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The aforesaid appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1983 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 1981, Shri Dhirendra Pal Varshaney v. VIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, arising out of judgment in O. S. No. 114 of 1978. By the impugned judgment, the court below has not condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the civil appeal, hence the second appeal. 3. It has been urged that the lower appellate court has erred in law in rejecting the application for condonation of delay wholly on arbitrary and untenable grounds. It is submitted that the reasons disclosed in the affidavit given in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were uncontroverted. Since there is no negligence attributed on the part of the appellant inasmuch as the delay has occurred on the fact that the official, who was having the concerned file in his custody, was tra...
State of U.P. Vs. Jai Pal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2895; [2002(95)FLR176]
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, State of U. P. through the Director, Kanpur Zoological Park Kanpur, has challenged the award dated 30th Mach, 1995 of the Labour Court III, U. P., Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 173 of 1991 in which the dispute was referred by the State under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act. The reference was received by the labour court. The parties after notice exchanged the pleadings through their representatives and also adduced evidence. The employer raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the labour court to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute on the ground that the petitioner (Director Kanpur Zoological Park. Kanpur), is not an industry. This precise controversy has been decided by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22768 of 1989. Kanpur Prani Uddyan, Azad Nagar, Kanpur through its Director v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Kanpur and Anr., on 7.12.1995 and by another judgment pas...
Ram Asrey Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2966; [2002(95)FLR235]; (2002)3UPLBEC2589
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the charge-sheets dated 11.1.1999 and 6.9.2001 which have been served upon the petitioner (copy filed as Annexures-3 and 9 to the writ petition). Another prayer made is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal Secretary.2. The petitioner joined Provincial Civil Service of the State of U. P. and became a member of Indian Administrative Service in 1994. He was posted as Additional Director (Administration) in Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, from 19.7.1989 to 28.7.1991. The charge-sheets have been issued alleging that he conducted some acts of misconduct during the period he was posted as Additional Director (Administration) in the Mandi Parishad.3. Section 14(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that save as otherwise expres...
Suresh Pal Vs. District Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3046
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. Before giving brief facts of the case, it would be relevant to record the displeasure of the Court in the manner the State has pursued this case. This writ petition was admitted on 9.8.1991 and notices were issued to the respondents and an interim order was passed by which the effect of the order dated 5.6.1991 was stayed and the respondents were directed to pay salary. The interim order dated 9.8.1991 is as under :'In the meanwhile, the order dated 5.6.1991 contained in Annexure-8 shall not be given effect to. Salary shall also be paid to the petitioner.'3. By order dated 7.8.2001, the standing counsel was granted 3 weeks' time to file counter-affidavit as last opportunity and the case was directed to be listed immediately after 3 weeks peremptorily. No counter-affidavit was filed by the State. The case was again put up for orders with office report dated 25.6.2001 and 7.9.2001 that no cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »