Allahabad Court September 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.
Salik Ram Singh Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1813
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 17.2.1997, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur in Review Application No. 21 of 1996, arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 79 of 1995, decided on 10.9.1996.2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. It is clear from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is a special remedy, may approach provided under the Act which has been held to be social welfare legislation and statute prescribes the remedy of filing an appeal against the orders passed by the Tribunal or this Court. In this view of the matter petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, he may, if so advised, approach this Court on the appellate side as contemplated under the Act. This being the legal position, t...
Ram Ugrah Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ957All
R.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000 has been filed by Ram Ugrah against the judgment and order dated July 14, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29840 of 2000, whereby, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that there is no error in the decision making process so far as the discretion exercised by the authorities in the matter of age relaxation is concerned.2. Special Appeal No. 520 of 2000 has been filed by Ram Sumer against the judgment and order dated July 14, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29839 of 2000, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with similar observation.3. Since both the special appeals raise common question of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.4. Ram Ugrah, appellant in Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000 was appointed as collection peon for realisation of Takavi revenue in the agriculture department o...
Ram Babu (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1308
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.1. Appellant Ram Babu, has preferred this appeal from jail. He has been convicted by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhansi by his judgment and order dated 17-2-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 1995 under Section 302. IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Sri Rakesh Chandra Upadhya, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard.3. According to the prosecution ease, 011 28-6-1995 at about 5.30 P.M. the appellant, who was living with his deceased wife, Smt. Laxmi, in the house of Abaci, Advocate in Itwari Ganj outpost Unnao Gate of police station Kotwali, demanded Rs. 100/- from the deceased wife for liquor. When the deceased refused the appellant poured kerosene oil over body of the deceased and set her on fire with the help of matchstick. P.W. 5, Laloo, their son, who was minor at the time of incident, informed about the incident to his elder maternal uncle. Ashok, P.W. 1, whose house was at a short dis...
Brij Mohan Singh Vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC36
S.K. Sen, C.J.1. This petitioner first moved before the learned Single Judge as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge felt that the application would lie under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the matter came up before us today. However, we find that the prayers made in the writ petition cannot apply to an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in civil suit on the basis of which the Panchayat Raj Officer has passed the impugned order is not proper in view of the fact that the civil suit itself is not maintainable and barred under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayatt Raj Act.2. If the suit is not maintainable since it is barred under the specific statute, in our view there is adequate remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure itself and proper course for the petitioner shall be to make an applic...
U.P. Urdu Development Organisation Through Its Hony. General Secretary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC40
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by U.P. Urdu Development Organization through its Hony. General Secretary Dr. Parwaj Ulum and Dr. Parwaz Ulum in his individual capacity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :'(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide Money Order Form and other Forms in trilingual i.e., Hindi, Urdu and English simultaneously meant for the use of Public in Uttar Pradesh as per the 'ORDER REGARDING THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY', Chapter II, Order 2.20(A);(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide a common facility for public of Uttar Pradesh so that Registered Letters, Speed Post Letters and Parcels addressed in Urdu Language be received by the post offices trough out the Uttar Pradesh in compliance of Central Government Official Language Policy;(iii) to issue a writ, order or ...
Vinai Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC53
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for claiming the following reliefs :(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to keep the petitioner in continuous service since December, 1985 and allow him to work and take him as regular and confirmed;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.7.1993 (Annexure-9) passed by respondent No. 1;(c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to protect the interest of the petitioner;(d) award costs of the petition.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as clerk and joined the service on 4.9.1982 in the Revenue Department in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi and worked as such till December, 1985. He alleges that his services were never terminated and he was given work till December, 1985. He h...
Bajrangi Pandey and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2788
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The present Special Appeal has been filed by Bajrangi Pandey and Ram Mohan Singh against the Judgment and order dated 6th September, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5389 of 1982 dismissing the writ petition and holding that the clause (iii) of the Notification dated 29.9.1981 is not applicable in the case of the appellant-writ petitioners.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that the appellants-writ petitioners are holding the post of Stenographers and posted in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Circle V & XVIII at Allahabad. The pay scale of the post of Stenographer on which the appellants-writ petitioners are working was Rs. 250-425. The State Government constituted Second Pay Commission for considering the revision of the pay scales of its employees. The recommendation made by the Second Pay Commission has been accepted by the State Government vide Notification dated 29.9.1981. The Second Pa...
Madarsa Arabia Misbahul Uloom and anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3UPLBEC2690
R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3207 of 2002 wherein the learned Single Judge has held that an appeal lies before the Commissioner of the Division concerned under Section 12D(2) of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and if an appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.1.2002, impugned in the aforesaid writ petition, within fortnight from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order, the learned Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to other necessary parties including the caveator respondent No. 4 in the writ petition.2. We have heard Shri Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and Shri Vashistha Tiwari learned Counsel for the respondents N...
Bhikam Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary of Hom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1UPLBEC441
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 30.1.1991, Annexure-9 to the writ petition.3. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force in June. 1996. He proceeded on casual leave with effect from 18.6.1990 to 6.7.1990 for his village. During this period it is alleged that there was an incident of Marpeet in the village on 2.7.1990 between his family members and Shiv Ram, his neighbour. It is stated that there was rivalry between his family and the family of Shiv Ram. The petitioner returned back to his Company on 3.7.1990 and informed about the incident to his Company Commander Deputy S.P. Ishwar Singh.4. It is submitted that Makhan Singh, brother of the petitioner informed him that a report has been lodged against him under Sections 376, 452 and 323 IPC at Police Station Achhnera by Smt. Rupan Devi wife of Shiv Ram a...
Ajay Mahajan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3129
M. Katju and K.N. Sinha, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned recovery certificate dated 7.7.1998 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and citation dated 15.6.2002.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. M/s. Denim Leather Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It took a loan over Rs. forty lacs from the Pradeshiya Industrial Investment Corporation, U. P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'P.I.C.U.P.'). The company mortgaged its units as well as the property belonging to the company. The petitioner is one of the guarantors forthe loan taken by the company from the P.I.C.U.P.4. The P.I.C.U.P. issued a recovery certificate dated 7.7.1998 in the name of Collector, Agra, for the recovery of the loan from M/s. Denim Leather Private Ltd. True copy of the recovery certificate is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that in pursuance of the recovery certificate, the district authorities instead of is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »